Sorry so long for the reply. The case you cite does not deal with wiretapping, It deals with listening in on a conversation from outside a phone booth. These might seem like the same thing, but they are not. In fact, if I recall correctly Katz was the impetus for the enactment of the law by Congress dealing with wiretapping. If you would have had some actual knowledge rather than just being a googler, it would have framed the case you cited in the proper light. This is also why lawyer's and cops must undergo extensive training in the law. Things that see the same, sometimes are only similar and require knowledge of more than what is read to understand the rulings.

 

I agree, mine are pretty boring too, and you raise a good point about the admissability of evidence.

I would encourage you though to do a little research into "The Military Commisions Act". It is the law of the land now. Meaning you, me, all of us.

We are all now at the mercy of the Executive branch, with no review or intervention or appeal allowed or even possible. What a criminal court might allow or exclude is no longer relevant.

Yes, this law is designed to fight terrorism. Good so far. But if you actually READ the law, it excludes no one. Words have meaning, especially when codified as law.

We are all subject now to the whim the Executive branch with no recourse to courts, lawyers, representatives. No right to see evidence, confront witnesses. This is properly called martial law.

Just do a search on the act above. And read what it actually says.