No. The government may not have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was DWI, but that does not mean that the grounds for the stop were constitutionally impermissible. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would only apply if the seizure and ensuing search violated the defendant's 4A rights.
Just because a gang member was acquitted for murder doesn't mean the crack in his pocket is excludable evidence.
A better lawyer won't help the defendant any more than his current counsel with respect to suppressing evidence.
Just because a gang member was acquitted for murder doesn't mean the crack in his pocket is excludable evidence.
A better lawyer won't help the defendant any more than his current counsel with respect to suppressing evidence.