Also not a lawyer. But who would do that, when it's unlikely to help them? The evidence against them would likely stand, either a matter of inevitable discove

Also not a lawyer. But who would do that, when it's unlikely to help them? The evidence against them would likely stand, either a matter of inevitable discovery (Evidence gets tossed when it is "fruit of the poisonous tree", but if you can show that you'd have gotten that same evidence a different way, the evidence remains. Just like here: Had Apple folded, given the evidence, and then it was ruled inadmissible due to the methods, the FBI could just argue other hack options were available) or as a matter of "good faith" (where, if the cops didn't know what they were doing was illegal, they get to keep the evidence they obtained under "good faith"). My understanding is that good faith allowances have grown quite large in recent year, to the point of absurdity. So our suspect, in this case, will only challenge the evidence if the chance of it helping THEM is high enough. They aren't going to do so for the good of society. I don't like relying on the good will or desperation of suspects that have evidence against them to mold our legal rights.