The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence. The courts deem such evidence tainted fruit of the poisonous tree. The origin of this doctrine is found in the landmark Supreme Court case, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
If this proves to be the case, even if they "found" "incriminating" evidence, they truly have nothing.
It is obvious that our evil, corrupt Govt and its alphabet agencies do not give a fuck about doctrine, laws, or the Constitution.
^^THIS^^
No fidelity what so ever..
But what if that was the intent? What if the evidence found incriminates them?
It doesn't matter. Even if a lower courts deems it allowable, I don't imagine the current SCOTUS would rule that way.
Example:
You are shooting off fireworks and playing loud music late at night, violating sound ordinance.
Cops arrive and tell you to lower sound output or they'll shut you down.
You're a reasonable American, so you agree to do that.
They then say, "We need to enter your house" and you say "no" but they do it anyways, a guest maybe opened the door for them.
They aren't invited in by the property owners (nor renters), they aren't within the reasonable scope of why they were there in the first place.
Now one of your guests is lighting up a joint in the bathroom with the door cracked open (in a state where it's illegal) and they arrest him.
Did they have the right to be in your house? No
Do they have the right to arrest someone violating the law? (Yes, but no) Depends. In this case, NO!
Any judge who isn't a fraud will throw this out immediately, the police officers (in any reasonable precinct) will be suspended from duty, and the person will get off scott-free.
As a current Master at Arms (Navy's Military Police), I, as an MA, cannot violate a sailor's privacy (without a warrant), except in barracks, which are subject to separate rules. You are, effectively, "at a hotel" in the barracks. Exceptions to that is locked containers and locked closets are even off limits without a warrant.