been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 (1963) (quoting Maguire, Evidence of Guild, 221 (1959)); see also State v. Frierson, 926 So.2d 1139, 1143, 1150 (Fla.2006). Here, the State failed to clearly and convincingly show that the evidence seized following Mr. Grant’s consent was not obtained by exploiting what they discovered during the prior search. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407. Any evidence that the deputies later found in Mr. Grant’s house after securing a warrant was also tainted because they obtained the warrant based on evidence found during the illegal search of his property. See State v. Thomas, 405 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we cannot agree that the evidence
holding that evidence that would not have been obtained but for an unlawful search must be excluded as 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 because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search 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 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