| http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1499231.html Here's the ruling on that case, because at first I found it odd too (search for "Redressability") In order to have standing, one must prove that a favorable ruling would provide relief. Mayfield wanted information kept by the government from house searches to be destroyed, and the gov't argued that even if the FISA ammendments and PATRIOT act provisions were declared unconstitutional, that this information could still be kept. Two arguments are pointed out: >a Fourth Amendment violation occurs at the moment of the illegal search or seizure, and that the subsequent use of the evidence obtained does not per se violate the Constitution >the Fourth Amendment does not provide a retroactive remedy for illegal conduct The first point is based off of this case(http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...)... it basically says that the notion of illegal evidence only exists in a criminal court setting. In the case mentioned (concerning parole hearings, which are administrative hearings), this evidence can still be admitted. The argument can then continue that the gov't can hold onto the information, they just are not allowed to present it in court (supposedly). I am not sure of this interpretation, but that was the argument. |