Exclusionary Rule Overgeneralization
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL2
Example wrong choices
19954_tutoring-attenuation · CRIMINAL · Choice AThe confession must be suppressed because any later confession after an illegal arrest is fruit forever.
Why it's attractive
The word 'forever' is an absolute — the exclusionary rule has exceptions, so an absolute claim is structurally suspect.
Why it's wrong
The word 'forever' is an absolute — the exclusionary rule has exceptions, so an absolute claim is structurally suspect.
19954_tutoring-attenuation · CRIMINAL · Choice BThe confession must be suppressed unless Lydia received Miranda warnings during the illegal arrest.
Why it's attractive
Miranda governs custodial interrogation. The confession here was voluntary and days later — Miranda is the wrong frame.
Why it's wrong
Miranda governs custodial interrogation. The confession here was voluntary and days later — Miranda is the wrong frame.
19954_tutoring-attenuation · CRIMINAL · Choice DThe confession is admissible only if police had probable cause for the original arrest.
Why it's attractive
The question assumes the arrest was illegal. Probable cause for the original arrest doesn't answer whether the confession's taint was broken.
Why it's wrong
The question assumes the arrest was illegal. Probable cause for the original arrest doesn't answer whether the confession's taint was broken.
20095_furniture-workshop · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because independent source doctrine applies only to witness testimony, not physical evidence.
Why it's attractive
Limiting the independent-source doctrine to 'witness testimony only' is an unsupported restriction. The answer text imposes a limitation that the doctrine doesn't have.
Why it's wrong
Limiting the independent-source doctrine to 'witness testimony only' is an unsupported restriction. The answer text imposes a limitation that the doctrine doesn't have.
20095_furniture-workshop · CRIMINAL · Choice CNo, because any later warrant automatically cures an earlier illegal search.
Why it's attractive
The word 'automatically' is an absolute. A later warrant cures only when it is genuinely independent — not automatically. The overclaim is visible from the choice text.
Why it's wrong
The word 'automatically' is an absolute. A later warrant cures only when it is genuinely independent — not automatically. The overclaim is visible from the choice text.
20095_furniture-workshop · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because once officers saw the tools unlawfully, the evidence was permanently tainted.
Why it's attractive
The word 'permanently' is an absolute — the exclusionary rule has exceptions, including independent source. An absolute claim is structurally suspect.
Why it's wrong
The word 'permanently' is an absolute — the exclusionary rule has exceptions, including independent source. An absolute claim is structurally suspect.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →