Incorrect! Luckily for the administration of justice, this answer isn't correct. The fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't not apply. U.S. ruled that police can use physical evidence collected based upon non-coercive statements given by suspects before Miranda warnings or a Miranda waiver (U.S. v. Pantane, U.S., 6/04; Peo. v. Brewer, 4DCA, 6/00; Peo. v. Whitfield, 5DCA, 6/96). These decisions are contrasted with an unlawful search or seizure (Fourth Amendment) where the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine applies (Wong Sun v. U.S., U.S., 1963). Also, precedent still continues that a coerced statement, taken in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, will render not only the statement inadmissible, but the physical evidence stemming from that statement inadmissible as well.