See Abdi, 463 F.3d at 557 n.13; Khan, 324 F.Supp.2d at 1187. D. The Court Must Suppress any Derivative Evidence Obtained as a Result of Pacheco’s Unlawful Seizure Under the “Fruit of the Poisonous , Tree” Doctrine. Because Pacheco’s warrantless arrest violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and the Fourth Amendment, the Court must suppress any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of [that] illegality” under the exclusionary rule as “so-called [tainted] ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” See Utah v. Strieff, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2061, 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016) (quotation omitted); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600-05, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (discussing the attenuation doc-triné); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The “exclusionary rule” serves as the primary
holding that may is still controlling in north carolina in light of united states v pataneus 159 l ed 2d 667 124 s ct 2620 2004 in which the us supreme court held that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply to physical evidence discovered as a result of statements made by the defendant when no miranda warning was given holding that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to both physical evidence and verbal statements holding that a suspect may invoke his miranda right to counsel only with respect to written statements while still permitting verbal statements without qualification recognizing doctrine holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements