639 (1980). However, a warrantless entry into a home may be justified if (1) the police have probable cause, and (2) exigent circumstances exist that make procurement s entry into the house did constitute an illegal search, we nonetheless find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Under the Fourth Amendment, evidence will not be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless the alleged illegality is at least the “but for” cause of the discovery of the evidence. State v. Guo, 64 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). In other words, suppression of evidence is not required unless “the challenged evidence is in some sense the product of illegal governmental activit —Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Because the warrantless entry was not even
holding that where information obtained from illegal warrantless search of a briefcase was used to establish probable cause for the warrant to search briefcase evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant was properly suppressed holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions