[/quote] A wrongful arrest is a wrongful seizure. More importantly, the search here was improper based on the 4th amendment violation, since, here, the arrest is wrongful, any evidence real or testimonial obtained as a result of the unlawful arrest will also be subject to exclusionary rule under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The unlawful arrest has tainted the search incident to that unlawful arrest. In regards to answer choice C, the way I read that is that the answer choice is a general statement of a rule of law, not specific to the fact pattern. Therefore, answer choice C is saying that any violation of the 4th amendment automatically requires the exclusion of any evidence obtained as a result of the violation. "Requires" meaning necessary, meaning every time no matter what, whenever you have a 4th amendment violation, evidence must be excluded. Yet, Answer choice C neglects the various exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule, such as attenuation, independent source, and inevitable discovery. These exceptions stand for the rationale that despite a 4th amendment violation, the exclusionary rule does not necessarily have to automatically be triggered, and the evidence can still be admitted. Therefore, answer choice D is an incorrect statement of law. It is not true that every 4th amendment violation requires the application of the exclusionary rule, since there are delineated exceptions to application of the exclusionary rule. Answer Choice A is wrong because the search incident to arrest is fruit of the poisonous tree as stated above. Honestly, I would have picked B, but that's because we never covered that exception to the exception of the good faith doctrine. We stopped at it's ok to rely on a police database, even if the info in the database was wrong due to negligence. Unfortunately, the explanation provided by Themis is vague and makes you think that the Exclusionary Rule shouldn't apply here, since it wouldn't serve sufficient deterrence, which is wrong since Answer D, the correct answer, concludes that the ER does apply and the gun should be excluded. That type of illegal police activity is the exact thing that the 4th amend and the ER tries to deter. The rationale provided for C is just a general statement, not specific to the fact pattern, which because of its vagueness makes you think that application of the ER in this instance wouldn't provide sufficient deterrence. As a last resort, you might be able to notice that if C was correct then it would also require D to be correct as well. Yet, for D to be correct, it does not require C to be correct, so you could eliminate C that way.[/quote]
I stand corrected
Your explanation makes sense
