From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 15:21:48 PDT
To: Eric Hughes <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CLIP: Legal Aspects
Message-ID: <9304222221.AA01876@servo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:11 AM 4/22/93 -0700, Eric Hughes wrote:

>Exploratory wiretaps, illegally made and whose evidence is not
>directly admissible, provide information that may lead investigators
>to other information.  This secondary information _is_ admissible.
>
>It would be a wonderful if the ER were strengthened so that all
>evidence which resulted from an illegal search _and all of its
>subsidiaries_ were conidered tainted.  That battle, however, is a much
>longer one to fight.

I thought this was already true, at least in theory. It's known as the
"fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine. Evidence gathered as a consequence
of illegally gathered evidence is in itself inadmissable. Of course,
this is probably what has been weakened the most by the Reagan/Bush
Supreme Court.

>Even in that situation, though, the defense would have to prove that
>an unauthorized wiretap took place.

*This* is the fundamental problem. There are many possible ways that
illegal wiretaps can further the collection of other evidence, without
the existence of the illegal wiretap ever having to be revealed.

Phil