Well, if he did kill someone, then not poor saddam. However if you think about this, it makes sense. If Saddam is the defendant, then he should not be able to argue the exclusionary rule for evidence against his crime because somebody else had their rights violated to obtain the evidence, that just doesn't make sense. His rights were not violated, therefore he has no argument.
In addition, if you noticed the other exceptions to the rule, if a private citizen found the evidence, it could also be included, since the fourth amendment only applies to government officials.
I wonder if the police have paid security companies in the past to hack into or steal evidence from others. We should be vigilant about such things, since that would be a legitimate loophole to the bill of rights, and the government is using private security companies, and even phone companies to spy on us more and more. But that is another subject.