Is all evidence discovered by illegal means necessarily excluded? There was a story a few years ago where some burglar turned over a stash of snuf/Child porn he found in someone's house. That stuff would have been excluded, right? The householder would walk because the cops got it from a tainted source. Since the climate Emails were obtained by illegal means, does that mean that in any lawsuit against an agency claiming that since the EARU was engaged in fraud, they can't use the emails in preparing their case? Where does a government loose good faith protection if their is suspicion that the basis of their regulation is fraudulent data, which they took on face value because the source was supposed to be good? I am just wondering how lawyers would argue the case.