I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.
The state has an advantage here. They can use evidence that
can't be presented in court to construct a case in parallel. That is, after enough surveillance, they'll know when to expect e.g. a conversation that will appear incriminating when stripped of context. They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation. If this scheme doesn't work the first time, they'll repeat until it does work. Now they don't have to admit they were just snooping on all people everywhere when the defendant first attracted their attention.
On the other side, when defendants need evidence the government has, as in this case, they have no way to get that evidence.
>They'll fake an anonymous tip in order to get a real warrant for surveilling that conversation.
The reason this works is because of the Good-faith exception[0]. The police acting on the tip, must investigate first. The investigation can lead to a finding which gains a search warrant. The executed warrant finds above and beyond the tip so The state is notified.
