context: Second, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is an evidentiary doctrine that does not apply in civil matters.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 411 Fed.Appx. 378, 384
citation_a.parenthetical: "The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine does not apply to civil actions brought under SS 1983[.]"
citation_a.sentence: See Hargroves v. City of New York, 411 Fed.Appx. 378, 384 (2d Cir.2011) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine does not apply to civil actions brought under § 1983[.]”); see also Matthews v. City of New York, 889 F.Supp.2d 418, 433-34 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“the Second Circuit has held ‘that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may not be invoked to support a § 1983 civil action, because the doctrine ‘is an eviden-tiary rule that operates in the context of criminal procedure ... and as such has generally been held to apply only in criminal trials.’ ”) (citations omitted).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 889 F.Supp.2d 418, 433-34
citation_b.parenthetical: "the Second Circuit has held 'that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may not be invoked to support a SS 1983 civil action, because the doctrine 'is an eviden-tiary rule that operates in the context of criminal procedure ... and as such has generally been held to apply only in criminal trials.' "
citation_b.sentence: See Hargroves v. City of New York, 411 Fed.Appx. 378, 384 (2d Cir.2011) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine does not apply to civil actions brought under § 1983[.]”); see also Matthews v. City of New York, 889 F.Supp.2d 418, 433-34 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“the Second Circuit has held ‘that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may not be invoked to support a § 1983 civil action, because the doctrine ‘is an eviden-tiary rule that operates in the context of criminal procedure ... and as such has generally been held to apply only in criminal trials.’ ”) (citations omitted).