warrant and the information on which it was based were unrelated to the entry and therefore constituted an independent source for the evidence.... 468 U.S. at 799, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The Supreme Court did not answer directly the question presented by this case — whether probable cause exists if it was not clearly established that drugs were in the apartment. But it did conclude that probable cause existed under the facts of that ease, and noted that “[t]he illegality of the initial entry ... has no bearing on ... whether the evidence first discovered during the search of the apartment pursuant to a valid warrant issued the day after the entry should have been suppressed as ‘fruit’ of the illegal entry.” Id. at 798, 104 S.Ct. 3380. But see United States v. Dice, 200 F.3d 978 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Our case law follows the reasoning in Segura.
holding that if police conduct  unconstitutional searches that acquire information used to obtain a search warrant then evidence seized during the later search conducted pursuant to warrant would be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant holding that violation of knockandannounce rule during execution of valid search warrant warranted suppression of evidence seized in search following violation holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search