Not precisely correct this bit: This kind of evidence --- legit evidence traceable to illegit sources --- would be excluded if it involved torture, but apparently the jurisprudence hasn't caught up to its use in unlawful surveillance.
Nominally private communications that are acquired without the benefit of a warrant, are excluded all the time. The notion of 'parallel construction' is antithetical to the presumption of innocence clause. Any conviction where it can be shown that the initial basis for investigation was acquired in this way and the evidence history had been "re-constructed" in order to avoid that taint, would be thrown out by any appellate court in the country.
No doubt there are motions being filed right now for such actions.
Nominally private communications that are acquired without the benefit of a warrant, are excluded all the time. The notion of 'parallel construction' is antithetical to the presumption of innocence clause. Any conviction where it can be shown that the initial basis for investigation was acquired in this way and the evidence history had been "re-constructed" in order to avoid that taint, would be thrown out by any appellate court in the country.
No doubt there are motions being filed right now for such actions.