Correct - The fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine does 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). "The self-incrimination clause is not implicated by the admission into evidence the physical fruit of a voluntary statement". The only remedy for a Miranda violation is suppression of a statement in court and its relevant evidentiary value in linking a defendant to any recovered evidence or contraband.

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.

This unMirandized statement might well be attenuated. Courts have ruled that a statement once taken in violation of Miranda could be rehabilitated at a later time (Oregon v. Elstad, U.S., 1985; New York v. Harris, U.S., 1990; Gavin v. Framer, 9USCA, 2001). Although a first statement is suppressed, a second statement could be admissible. Factors to consider in deciding whether a second statement is sufficiently attenuated include a break in time and circumstances between the first and second questioning, the presence of curative measures (for example, telling the suspect that the first statement can’t be used against him), and a subsequent voluntary Miranda waiver.

Note: There is no Fourth Amendment issue in the recovery of the stolen property. The suspect has no standing to object to a search of the storm drain at 6th and Main!