What is the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine primarily concerned with?

The 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine is primarily concerned with the suppression of evidence that is derived from illegal searches or unlawful actions by law enforcement. This legal principle holds that if evidence was obtained through constitutional violations—such as a search conducted without a valid warrant or probable cause—then any additional evidence that is derived from that initial illegality is also considered tainted and inadmissible in court.

This doctrine is rooted in the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The rationale is to deter law enforcement from engaging in illegal conduct by ensuring that they cannot benefit from any evidence obtained through such means. Therefore, if the initial evidence (the "tree") is obtained improperly, any subsequent evidence (the "fruit") that arises from that illegal action must also be excluded to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Other options address different legal concepts or scenarios that do not directly relate to the main focus of this doctrine. For instance, while suppression of all evidence from a crime scene is a broader concept that may not specifically tie to the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree,' the core principle here specifically targets those derivatives of tainted evidence. Hence, option B accurately encapsulates the essence of the doctrine.