> How would LE defend money being spent on something that they cannot use? I mean any judge will see it, no?

The common-sense interpretation is not always (and, much as I hate to say it, probably sometimes should not be) the interpretation arrived at by a judge.

I appreciate healthy skepticism, but evidence has been thrown out on far flimsier premises by even the lowest of courts. It would be very surprising if evidence of this manner continually survived through the court system on appeal after appeal.

This isn't saying it can never happen, but it would be in contrast to the multitude of times that evidence was discarded for less.

I haven't had a chance to read the fcc's reasoning on why the ISPs are allowed to collect the data in the first place, and I do agree it seems like a ruling that's just can't wait to show off all its loopholes; but I think this would be pretty difficult to bring as evidence in trial. Though I do agree and think it'll be used as a cudgel for other purposes outside of the courts, for threats or for discriminatory justice.

A contract violation by LE is not a constitutional violation that triggers the exclusionary rule, it's a matter between LE and the party they have a contract with. Even if enforcement of the contract happens at all, the result is likely a damage award for the breach.

parallel construction