In the United States v. Ceccolini case of 1977, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search could be used in court. The case involved a police officer who had discovered gambling slips while searching a flower shop without warrant. This led to the questioning and eventual testimony of an employee, which was then used as evidence against Ceccolini for running an illegal gambling operation. The defense argued that this testimony should be excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which prohibits any evidence obtained through unconstitutional means from being admitted into court. However, in a 6-3 decision, Justice Lewis Powell writing for majority held that since there was sufficient attenuation between the unlawful search and discovery of witness (the employee), her live witness testimony did not derive directly from illegal entry but rather from independent act of free will; hence it does not fall within 'fruit' exclusionary rule's scope and can therefore be admissible at trial.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ceccolini, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that evidence obtained through a chain of events initiated by an illegal search should be excluded from trial under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. In this case, they believed that Lois Hennessey's testimony was directly linked to Officer Narducci’s unlawful discovery of betting slips in Ceccolini’s flower shop; therefore it should have been suppressed at trial. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's view on attenuation - they felt there wasn't enough temporal or causal distance between initial illegality and subsequent witness testimony to justify its inclusion as evidence in court proceedings.