united-states hacking rules-of-evidence ethical-hacking
Can Law Enforcement in the US use evidence acquired through an illegal act by someone else?
<p>There are reports on the internet this morning that a group of people were able to hack Parler and download around 70tb of data from the servers before AWS ceased hosting the platform. There are plenty of accusations being levelled at Parler's users in regards to using it to coordinate activity during the 6th January Capitol Riots.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/kuqvs3/all_parler_user_data_is_being_downloaded_as_we/" rel="noreferrer">/r/ParlerWatch/ All Parler user data is being downloaded as we speak!</a></p>
<p>Can law enforcement agencies in the USA use this data without violating any laws themselves? Would it be admissible in a court of law should charges be brought? Would this complicate legal proceedings should law enforcement seek a court order to seize the same data from the source (it is presumably still being held by AWS).</p>

<p>Yes:</p>
<p>So long as law enforcement did not compel the hackers to hack the data and the data was recovered by Law Enforcement through their investigation of the Hacker's breeching the server's security.   Evidence of a crime committed by a third party is admissiable if it came to light during an unrelated investigation.</p>
<p>The party that did the hacking could still be liable for any crimes they committed in their retrieval of the data.  There are occasions where someone who is committing a crime stumble upon evidence of a more serious crime and informs the police of the problem either because they would never want to be party to a serious crime, but also because it can help them get reduced sentancing to give up the greater evil.</p>
<p>As an example, in &quot;Home Alone,&quot; when Kevin tricks Harry with the film clip of the gangster murdering Snakes with his Tommy Gun, Harry is freaking out telling this to Marv, but Marv realizes what's going to happen if they get caught:  They've been robbing houses in the neighborhood and the police would likely pin the murder on them rather than assume two seperate crimes occured in the same block.   Marv suggests they snoop around so they can see who walks out of the house and give the cops a face with a name.   This leads them to discovering Kevin's ruses and the film's climax.</p>

<p>The admission of such evidence would not be barred by the 4th Amendment (in federal court) or the 4th Amendment as incorporated through the 14th Amendment (in state court).</p>
<p>Whether or not the evidence would be admissible, however, does not automatically follow from resolution of the constitutional criminal procedure question.</p>
<p>If the illegally obtained evidence was privileged (e.g. a tape recording of a secret conversation between an attorney and client or husband and wife) it would not be admissible as illegally obtaining the evidence would not waive the privilege.</p>
<p>A court could also employ a balancing test of the probative value of the admitted evidence against the harm caused by admitted illegally obtained evidence, just as courts do when considering whether to admit illegally obtained evidence in a civil case where the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply.</p>
<p>Also, there is not a uniform rule of law that applies in all state and federal jurisdictions as it is not a question of federal constitutional law.</p>
