Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained.
A hypothetical situation to setup the question:
- Assume that condo owners built a set of patios on the common area in violation of rules / statute.
- The Association claims that it has necessity to build a retaining wall because of the soil erosion caused by the patio.
- Assume that the Association has a duty to not allow the patio and restore the embankment to its "OEM" state.
- Assume that the case law prohibits Associations from allowing owners to build patios.
Because the Association has failed in its duty to remove the patios that cause a problem: they can not claim necessity because they allowed the problem. This seems to be similar to: "fruit of the poison tree": is there a better phrase to describe the matter?
Much like "fruit of the poison tree", necessity can not be a viable claim / defense because the Association failed to uphold its hypothetical duties. In others words:
How to 'coin" the idea that the affirmative defense of "I am breaking a rule pursuant to solving a problem" is not valid if a defendant created / allowed the problem"?`
IANAL: if I can clarify please ask questions.