The question is awfully vague.
If the informant lies and the police know it's a lie but use it as a pretense for a search anyway, it might apply.
If the informant lies, and the police don't have any reason to think it's a lie, then probably not, because the police were acting in 'good faith' when acting on the information.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is any evidence obtained as a result of a violation of the accused's rights. It is important because it forces police to respect your Fourth Amendments rights or they can lose important evidence.
Issues involving both concepts are frequently raised in criminal trials, however they are two totally different, legal concepts and rulings.
No, passion fruit grows wild in Hawaii all over and is not poisonous.
No
it is poisonous.
No it is fruit juice.
Yes
No. Beetles don't bite and they are not poisonous.
No, Kiwi fruit skins are edible.
Yes. In Wong Sun, the Court applied the "attenuation concept" and said that if the link between the original illegal act and the final discovery of evidence (the fruit) is too remote or tenuous; the fruit of the poison tree doctrine should not be applied.
yea
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the Exclusionary Rule that applies to indirect evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure.There are several exceptions to both the Exclusionary Rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:Independent Source Doctrine: Evidence discovered in part from an independent, untainted source. [Murray v. United States,(1988)]Inevitable Discovery Rule: the evidence would have been found despite the unconstitutional action. [Nix v. William, (1984)]Attenuated Connection Principle: The chain of cause and effect is too attenuated to tie directly to the unconstitutional action. [Wong Sun v. United States, (1963)]Good Faith Rule: A search warrant not based on probable cause was issued, but acted upon in good faith by government agents. [US v. Leon, (1984).]