[danielmryan]

I think that [illegally-acquired evidence] restriction only applies if law enforcement collects the info illegally. That isn't the case here, this is a private individual or group. Any lawyers here know???

I'm not one, but this point occurred to me after a mull-over:

If evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen is admissible, then a private citizen could beat a confession out of a suspect and the confession would be admissible. Evidence obtained by aggravated assualt is illegally-obtained evidence.

Were this legal, the police would have picked up on it a long time ago. All a police officer would have to show in court was that (s)he didn't suborn any such beating.

[PreciousLiberty]

“If evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen is admissible”

See “The Pentagon Papers”. Those were even marked “Top Secret”.

I think the leaked CRU info falls into the same category, only a lot more is at stake.

[AnAmericanMother]

The private individual is subject to prosecution for agg assault in that case. Also can be mulcted in civil damages.

You won't find very many actual private citizens who'll do that.

And if they've got some sort of connection to the P.D., they're not a "private citizen". Off duty officers, for example, are still "the State" for Fourth Amendment purposes. I haven't seen a case, but I would think that P.D. employees and contractors would be in the same boat.

Freelance hackers are NOT state actors.

[AnAmericanMother]

P.S. - there is no Fourth Amendment in Britain.

[dangerdoc]

I think that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court, but since the authority did not obtain the evidence illegally, would it be probable cause for a search warrant?