[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
I think the police have been using "parallel construction" to get around that for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
> Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.[1]
> In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.
Now, that's not to say that cops wouldn't do this in order to finally get a case around a particular subject who was able to sidestep previous investigations or something. I just doubt that it happens often enough to be worthwhile.
A report doesn't have to be generated by PA. A forensic examiner is free to use other methods to examine the binary. So long as the examiner can explain all the actions and any artifacts that would be left behind.
Plus, most law enforcement seizes the device and keeps it until after the trial. If there were valid arguments against the authenticity of data in the extraction report, it would be easy to verify that data's existence by checking the phone, re-extracting the data using a known-clean UFED, etc. This isn't the end of the world by any means for legal mobile device searches.
In the Metzler kidnapping case the first confession was not admissible in court which had been obtained under threat of torture.
