rule.” Id. (citing United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1042 n. 2, 1044-49 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Wilson, 671 F.2d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir.1982); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 406 n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1243 n. 12, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977)). Furthermore, we have recognized “several factors which are relevant to determining whether the defendant’s behavior was a product of the illegal police action.” Id. at 1015. These “include the temporal proximity of the arrest and the defendant’s response, the presence or absence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. (citing Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 218, 99 S.Ct. at 2259; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). Here, wh th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>). Although the Government does not argue which
holding incriminating statements defendant made when police officers questioned him regarding heroin the officers found during an unlawful search of defendants house were fruit of the poisonous tree holding evidence found pursuant to warrant based on probable cause provided by prior illegal entry was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree holding incriminating statements defendant made after a detective questioned defendant about serial numbers the detective had obtained during an unlawful search of a stolen car were fruit of the poisonous tree 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