I can see in principle why this isn't really justice. But in the example you gave, I have a hard time siding with John Smith.
Anti-X was able to indict him because they found evidence by using another agency - this seems intuitive and useful because they could not have ordinarily found it. If he genuinely committed the crime, they're not obstructing justice or even his privacy here, they're just being creative.
Strictly speaking, I don't really mind that agencies in the United States can do that, because it opens avenues to evidence they would not otherwise have. What I would mind is if law enforcement decided they could find admissible evidence by deliberately retrieving and opportunistically analyzing inadmissible evidence as a springboard.
I understand that those two can seem really similar, but I honestly believe the latter case is a much more serious violation - it just seems like a much more slippery slope to me.
In principle, I don't care about John Smith[1] and I wouldn't advocate solely for the lawbreaker's sake. I'm advocating for innocent people whose rights are violated. Now, if this scheme were directed against a different class of criminal like theiving bankers or corrupt policemen; I'd feel better about the result, but not much. Along those lines, it is offensive to imagine that our supposed inalienable rights are discarded for something as pedestrian as drug offenses when it is clearly possible for some violent crimes to be stopped[2]. Note that I am not an advocate for that. But IMO it is an added insult that we're here living a version of Orwell's nightmare, having just begun to suffer its abuses, but because of the priorities of gov't don't receive the benefit of pervasive gov't protection.
On the ZOMG! slippery-slope angle, imagine just how abusive and corrupt an individual or small group of gov't agents can be when they are allowed to conceal so much of an investigation. One person, or a small group can completely frame an individual for a crime with relatively little opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.
[1] Personally, I am an advocate from drug legalization, but that's a separate issue.
[2] James Bamford alludes to the notion that NSA folk have had to observe some pretty terrible things in the course of duty. I don't envy them for it.
Anti-X was able to indict him because they found evidence by using another agency - this seems intuitive and useful because they could not have ordinarily found it. If he genuinely committed the crime, they're not obstructing justice or even his privacy here, they're just being creative.
Strictly speaking, I don't really mind that agencies in the United States can do that, because it opens avenues to evidence they would not otherwise have. What I would mind is if law enforcement decided they could find admissible evidence by deliberately retrieving and opportunistically analyzing inadmissible evidence as a springboard.
I understand that those two can seem really similar, but I honestly believe the latter case is a much more serious violation - it just seems like a much more slippery slope to me.