system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" Doctrine is preposterous and entirely contrary to the notion of justice. CMV.

By way of background, the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine is a legal doctrine in the United States which says that evidence which has been illegally gathered cannot be admitted in court.

Of the reasons for its existence, the strongest I have ever heard is the argument that it deters officers from conducting illegal searches. However, when you consider the incentives and disincentives for the police officer personally, one would think that the punishment for the relevant crime is more of a disincentive than the exclusion of evidence that someone has committed a crime.

The reason 4th Amendment protections exist in the US are so that people can enjoy their security of property; not to intentionally obstruct the prosecution of would-be criminals. For someone who has a legitimate reason to object to an intrusion onto their property, the proper recourse is to file a complaint for trespass.

By way of comparison, the Australian legal system will frequently allow evidence that was obtained in procedurally improper ways if the probity of the evidence in question outweighs the prejudice to the accused. This is known as the "Christie Discretion" after R v Christie and it serves the useful purpose of still excluding evidence that casts the accused in a shady light but does not actually go to his guilt (as the evidence will be more prejudicial than probative). If a police officer does infringe on your civil rights, you lodge a complaint with the Crime and Misconduct Commission, which is an independent body that will dole out an appropriate punishment for the officer ranging from a warning to dismissal to criminal prosecution.

I cannot see a single way in which the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine is beneficial at upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens than the alternative. CMV.
gpt
This may be different between the US and Australia. 
Here, it seems to be very, very difficult to punish police for crimes committed in the course of duty. Gross negligence, theft, outright savage and wholly unnecessary beatings seem to be met with "paid leave" and cleared of all charges.

I am highly dubious that punishment for the relevant crime would act as a reasonable deterrent in this system.

For instance, let's say a warrant was issued, but the burden of probable cause wasn't met? The officer who executed the warrant wouldn't be charged with trespassing, he was there in good faith for all anyone can prove. And the issuer? What crime could he be charged with?

The rules of evidence are much easier to enforce. They're executed in public with many witnesses, a judge, often recorded, the defendant's council present.

In a system with realisticallly no negative consequences for an officer who breaks the rules, there is every incentive to do just that.