in his locker that would entitle him to Fourth Amendment protection against the search of the locker because prison officials examined and inventoried the contents of the locker when items were added or removed. That the State’s motive in conducting the search differs from the state’s motive in Hudson is irrelevant to the determination of whether the prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. The search of the locker did not violate the Fourth Amendment. [¶ 21] Because the authorities legally searched O’Rourke’s jail locker, O’Rourke cannot prevail on his contention that the search of Davila’s residence resulted from information illegally obtained during an unlawful search. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). C. Other Issues [¶ 22] After considering
holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial holding that evidence that would normally be admissible may be excluded if the evidence was a direct or indirect product of an unlawful search holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence holding that direct and indirect evidence from unlawful searches is inadmissible