No inconsistency? So the NBA can strip owners of their property rights by relying on illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see the agreement that Sterling accepted, that gave the NBA the right to exclude him from his own property. I understand the 2.5 million dollar fine, but that is supposedly the maximum agreed to by all parties.
OTOH, I am rather enjoying the difficulties this new standard creates for all the sports team owners and players. Like all the "laws" in this country, the NBA outrage is selectively applied.
Sure they can.
In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot use evidence which was illegally seized by government agents, but it can use evidence illegally seized by private parties. In anything other than a criminal case (civil lawsuit, private arbitration, even a governmental proceeding like a license-revocation hearing), all illegally-obtained evidence is admissible.