What doctrine excludes evidence obtained after illegal government action?

The correct answer is the Fruits of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. This doctrine holds that evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure is also inadmissible in court. Essentially, if the initial government action violates a person's constitutional rights, any subsequent evidence that is obtained as a direct result of that violation is tainted and cannot be used against the individual in a legal proceeding. This principle encourages law enforcement to adhere strictly to constitutional procedures and acts as a deterrent against unlawful actions.

In contrast, while the Exclusionary Rule prevents the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in court, it is a broader concept that encompasses situations such as these. The term "fruits of the poisonous tree" specifically refers to the secondary evidence derived from the initial illegal action, making it a more precise answer in this context.

Double Jeopardy pertains to the protection against being tried for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, which is not relevant here. The Miranda Doctrine refers to the requirement for law enforcement to inform a suspect of their rights during custodial interrogation, which is also not directly related to evidence exclusion based on illegal government actions.