[flumbaps]

Well, I suppose the defence would be some argument that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply, because there's nothing illegal about the NSA sharing information with other agencies, and there's no obligation to share every piece of evidence in an investigation. The prosecution is required to share all exculpatory evidence with the defence, but this wouldn't be exculpatory. There is an obligation to provide probable cause in order to justify each search, seizure, warrant, arrest, etc. but this obligation was met - that would be the purpose of the parallel construction. Cases were tried based on probable cause that was shared, and so that probable cause must have been sufficient. The investigators simply did not disclose ALL the probable cause they had, (because some of it was secret).

There will be some contention over whether investigators lied or simply didn't share all evidence. This will probably lead to some slippery wordplay. For example, in the case of a "random" traffic stop that was actually targeting an individual, the word "random" could be stretched to mean "without reason" - meaning that by saying it was a "random" traffic stop, investigators were really just not giving a reason for the stop. Since no reason is required for a random traffic stop (under this new definition), that's all fine.

Perhaps the real problem here isn't that the NSA was sharing information, but that it is easy to find probable cause when properly motivated.

[gyepi]

Good try, but these won't wash. It's hard to argue against it because the facts seem quite clear and straightforward.

1. If the origin of the investigation is revealed to be illegal, the entire investigation is thrown into question and the resulting evidence could be suppressed.

2. Random traffic stops are illegal. There must be a reason for every stop.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html