At 08:11 AM 4/22/93 -0700, Eric Hughes wrote:

Exploratory wiretaps, illegally made and whose evidence is not directly admissible, provide information that may lead investigators to other information. This secondary information _is_ admissible.

It would be a wonderful if the ER were strengthened so that all evidence which resulted from an illegal search _and all of its subsidiaries_ were conidered tainted. That battle, however, is a much longer one to fight.

I thought this was already true, at least in theory. It's known as the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine. Evidence gathered as a consequence of illegally gathered evidence is in itself inadmissable. Of course, this is probably what has been weakened the most by the Reagan/Bush Supreme Court.

Even in that situation, though, the defense would have to prove that an unauthorized wiretap took place.

*This* is the fundamental problem. There are many possible ways that illegal wiretaps can further the collection of other evidence, without the existence of the illegal wiretap ever having to be revealed. Phil