This is particularly bad in consideration of the fact the the (right wing of) Supreme Court has severely weakened the 'Fruit of the Poisoned Tree' Doctrine.
I obtained this evidence illegally, but this evidence pointed to evidence I could have found legally, can I use *this* Evidence?
The answer used to be a flat 'No'. However Several cases of late have shift that to a 'Well, did you have a good faith belief it was obtained legally?' (Because it turns out Ignorance of the Law *is* an excuse, if you're a professional! Only Amateurs can be held liable for not knowing the law!). Indeed, even the illegally obtained evidence itself can be introduced now, as long as there was 'Good Faith'.
To Paraphrase J.R. Ewing: 'Good Faith', if you can fake that, you've got it made!