When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.
Yup. We're talking about the FBI here, so that qualifies.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?
Google it; it's lying around if you look for it. Look up parallel construction of cases and read up a bit on deliberate withholding of evidence from the court.
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.
Wrong in this context. Section 1983 actions are what you bring when you file a civil claim against the government for having your rights violated. Juries decide issues of fact in Section 1983 cases. Therefore juries devaluing accused criminals results in less protection of constitutional rights.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Citation needed please.
Haven't looked through the literature for it--you are welcome to look. I am personally aware of it happening to someone who the cops beat the shit out of.