Just now read an appeal which has some sililarities to our case.   It is from USCA 10 circ, USA v Lin Lyn Trading, Raymond Lyn Thomas. First 2 quotes from the appellate ruling, then some comments.

<In granting Thomas and Lin Lyn's motion for return of property in 1994, Judge Benson determined that the seizure of the notepad was illegal. The government did not appeal that ruling. Further, during argument before the district court on Thomas and Lin Lyn's motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment, the government conceded that Judge Benson had found that the seizure of the notepad was unlawful and again declined to challenge the decision. Consequently, the government may not now contest the legality of the seizure of the notepad. Its arguments on this point are waived, and we shall assume that the notepad was seized illegally. >

<By suppressing the evidence acquired as a result of the illegal seizure, the prosecution is unable to benefit from the government's unconstitutional conduct. On the other hand, there is nothing to forbid the government from beginning a new investigation, using the evidence legitimately acquired prior to March 29, 1991, and conducted by personnel ­ both investigatory and prosecutorial ­ untouched by the taint of the yellow notepad. If the government is able to prosecute its case by presenting untainted evidence derived from legally acquired materials, then it should be allowed to do so; defendants have no right to be protected from governmental actions taken in compliance with constitutional requirements. >

The notebook in question contained info related to Raymond Lyn Thomas's discussions with his attorney. It was seized 3 or 4 years prior to an indictment. It was kept unsealed and at least one copy made.  Defendant claimed that evidence for the indictment came as a result of the unlawful seizure of the notebook. The district court found that Seagraves intentionally seized the notepad with knowledge that it contained privileged information.  Subsequently the appeals court basically said you only get one chance to question the legality of the seizure. Once ruled illegal, you can not change that.  It affirmed the dissallowance of any new evidence obtained as a result of info contained in the notebook.  The court then said if you can prosecute w/o using tainted evidence you may certainly do so.