Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine states that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search cannot be used as the basis for learning about or collecting new admissible evidence not known before.

• A. It allows new evidence to be derived
• B. It requires all evidence to be suppressed
• C. It prohibits using evidence derived from illegal searches to obtain additional evidence
• D. It only applies to fingerprints

Answer: (C)

The main idea is that evidence obtained through an unlawful search taints any secondary information or leads that result from it, so you can’t rely on that tainted material to get more evidence. This is the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree concept: the “fruit” of an illegal search is not usable to harvest additional admissible evidence, with exceptions like independent sources or attenuation only sometimes applying.

That’s why the best answer says it prohibits using evidence derived from illegal searches to obtain additional evidence. The other statements don’t fit: the doctrine doesn’t allow new evidence to be derived from tainted starting points, it doesn’t require every bit of evidence to be suppressed (only tainted or derived evidence is generally excluded unless an exception applies), and it isn’t limited to fingerprints.