No need to tell the court how you found out about the lawnmowing for the neighbour that was never reported to the IRS...
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
I think the police have been using "parallel construction" to get around that for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
> Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.[1]
> In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.
A report doesn't have to be generated by PA. A forensic examiner is free to use other methods to examine the binary. So long as the examiner can explain all the actions and any artifacts that would be left behind.
Not to mention regimes that don’t actually care about things like evidence being “legally admissible”.
