Under some circumstances, yes. If the police induce a suspect to speak because of illegal behavior engaged in by the police, the suspect’s statements may be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. For instance, assume that the police induce a suspect to confess by confronting the suspect with objects the police seized during an illegal search. (For more on search and seizure, see Chapter 2.) If seeing the illegally seized objects induced the suspect to confess, a judge may throw out the confession as the fruit of the poisonous tree (the illegal search), even if the police first gave the Miranda warning.
More About Poisonous Fruit
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule prevents police officers and prosecutors from indirectly benefiting from improper searches and interrogations. The rule provides that if police find out about evidence as the result of an illegal search or interrogation, a judge can bar a prosecutor from using the evidence at trial. (Wong Sun v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1963.) The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine removes what would otherwise be a big incentive for police officers to conduct illegal searches and interrogations.