And if they located him via illegal means, none of that is admissable…
Devil’s advocate and IANAL, but illegally obtained evidence can still be admitted so long as at some point there was a legal means to obtain it. I’m sure there’s a ton of nuance that goes into the specifics and especially regarding this case, but it’s not like that stuff is completely tossed out of it was found illegally.
This legal doctrine is called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and there are specific exceptions that can be made for it. According to its wikipedia page:
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).
That said though, half this page is appended with [Citation Needed] so I maybe wouldn’t take that as gospel.
Devil’s advocate and IANAL, but illegally obtained evidence can still be admitted so long as at some point there was a legal means to obtain it. I’m sure there’s a ton of nuance that goes into the specifics and especially regarding this case, but it’s not like that stuff is completely tossed out of it was found illegally.
Also not a lawyer.
This legal doctrine is called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and there are specific exceptions that can be made for it. According to its wikipedia page:
That said though, half this page is appended with [Citation Needed] so I maybe wouldn’t take that as gospel.