If a person had good reason to believe that a violent crime was happening at his neighbour’s house then breaking in to the neighbour’s house would be justified. And even though they trespassed their testimony should be admissible in court.
If, on the other hand, a person broke in to their neighbour’s house without a good reason and discovered some crime their testimony should be admissible in court and they should receive the punishment for trespassing/breaking and entering.
That’s all pretty straight forward and I expect everyone agrees… now what if the person trespassing/breaking and entering is working for the government?
What happens is that government employees are not prosecuted and their discovery is not admissible in court (e.g the Tohoe spying). This accepted procedure enables two injustices.
All evidence should be allowed in Court and crimes committed by government employees should be prosecuted.