Libertarian legal theory prioritizes procedural consistency over outcomes. Even if the evidence is factually true, its acquisition through coercion invalidates its use in a justice process. To accept such evidence would imply that aggression can be a legitimate tool for uncovering truth, opening a dangerous precedent where anyone could trespass or violate rights "for the greater good."

Okay I still have “buts”: - aggression would still not be legitimate, as the aggressor would be punished non the less (regardless if he finds eve fence or not - information (here the evidence) is not scare? and thus no property. - if the evidence would be uploaded to the internet, third parties would have gotten the information without aggression, and it could then be used legally Also it feels wrong, but I now feelings are not objectively. But it’s basically saying, the truth does not exist legally.