I disagree with this tradition; it is inherently unjust. Facts are facts--all should be admissible. The crime of illegal search should be prosecuted, but the facts must remain.
For example, the police conduct an illegal search of a person's house and find a diary. Within the diary is a detailed account of a crime providing details that only the killer could know. Under our current system, the diary would not be admissible due to the fact that the search itself was illegal. What the Patriot Act, and this ruling does, is remove that protection.
Good. Admit the evidence, prosecute the illegal search. But I think a wiretap is on or past the borderline of Constitutional protection. A phone call goes through a public network, as does e-mail; it is no longer in your home.
I see both sides of this arguement and beleive that a middle ground could be found. For instance, the evidence collected from a wiretap or other source should not be shared. However, if evidence of a crime was found during the monitoring, the intelligence gathering agency could then contact the FBI (or appropriate LEO) and act as an informant. "We have observed the following...." kind of stuff.
This would allow the LEO to then go and obtain a warrent and legally establish their own monitoring. Yes it is a bit of a delay and yes it would be double monitoring, but I'm willing to pay thoses costs in order to have a SOLID legal case and not trample on the rights of the people.
What does the average citizen have to fear from a wire tap or email monitoring? If they do nothing illegal, there is nothing there. This morning on NPR, the argument was made against this as a violation of citizens' privacy and the assistant US Attorney General Trinh (spelling?) said, "Why would we go after private citizens? We have enough work to do with suspects." One of the problems of intelligence work is the volume of data involved. Why would one add extraneous data?
None the less, I agree this could be misused by the government. I want a sunset clause on this law. The Constitution guarantees privacy as an implied right. Privacy should only be usurped in event of a national emergency, such as a war; like the one in which we are engaged. Even with a war, I would not allow home searches without a warrant. I barely tolerate phone tapping and email snooping. I can understand those who don't tolerate this.
The same arguement could be made for firearms. "If the average citizen does not commit crimes, then they should not fear registration". Of course, it never stops at registration.
At best, it is a slippery slope.
Also, have you EVER seen a government agency SHRINK? In truth, most agencies expand to meet the need, and when the need has been met and the threat removed or reduced, the agency then goes out and finds or expands their charter. This is to protect their budgets and the number of workers within their organizations. The organization becomes self serving.
Without some kinds of checks and balances, the organization that starts out investigating terrorists starts going after drug lords, then all smuggling, then all organized crime, then all crime. And when they run out of crimes to work on, they start creating crimes either by falsification of evidence or by going after 'hate' speach or something else.
I like the idea that LEO must FIRST obtain a warrent. Not because a denial of facts or truth but because such additional steps create an environment that acts against the abuses of Law Enforcement. It makes them take the extra effort to make a solid case. It also creates a gate that must pass the "smell test".
Granted the system is not perfect - nothing created by man or operated by man will ever be perfect. However, it does provide a limit to the powers of the police. Though I have never lived in a police state, I have seen it's effect on the people.
While stationed in West Germany with the Army, I had the opportuity to travel to East Berlin, which was their "showcase" city. The people there were very closed, quite noticiably oppressed. That is because the domestic intelligence agency could spy on anyone at any time. That is NOT what I wish for the US.
Also, do not forget that at some time in the future, Clinton's cronies (or someone of their ilk) will be back in power. We have already seen their unwillingness to obey law and further, the unwillingness of their friends to uphold the law. I do not want rules in place that create furtile ground for missuse.