How have courts interpreted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?

People v. Aylwin (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 826, 838, 107 Cal.Rptr. 824, 833. "If illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered in any event, then what was obtained unlawfully may be admitted."

People v. Ramsey (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 302, 313, 77 Cal.Rptr. 249, 256. "The independent source limitation upon the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine normally applies when the evidence derived from the unlawful conduct of the police would have been ultimately revealed by usual and commonplace police investigative procedures."

Page 801

People v. Chapman (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 149, 167, 67 Cal.Rptr. 601, 612. Where evidence is claimed to be the "fruit" of police illegality an inquiry will be made "whether the asserted 'fruit' was in fact a product of the statement and whether it would have been discovered through an 'independent source,' such as police investigation independent of the illegal inquiry."

[80 Cal.App.3d 676] People v. Thomsen (1965) 239 Cal.App.2d 84, 91, 48 Cal.Rptr. 455, 460. Where "(u)sual and commonplace investigatory procedures would have developed the damaging evidence that convicted defendant, quite aside from the illegal search" which first exposed it, the evidence was properly admitted.