Constitutional Question

Well, I don't think we are talking about evidence that was obtained using illegally obtained evidence.  FOTPT was recently invoked to suppress evidence (a key witness) in the terror trial that just took place in new york.  The witness was only learned about when they tortured his name out of the defendant.  Because torture is illegal, the prosecution was not allowed to call on the witness in court, and rightfully so.

In the OP's example we are talking about the "exclusionary rule".  Which does hold the exception that it cannot be invoked unless the person arguing for the evidence to be suppressed was the person who's rights are violated.  In this example I think Saddam's professor is correct, only SC's rights were violated, not Saddam's, so he would not be able to suppress the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule

So there would be nothing to keep the police from illegally searching someone's home as long as the evidence wasn't used against the person whose home they ransacked?

I'd have to do some research, but I'm pretty sure the police department themselves might be liable civilly.  You, as the homeowner could try to seek legal action against the department, however in Saddam's case, he's fucked.

Poor Saddam. 

It doesn't seem right that they don't have a check against that type of illegal search.

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.

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.

Exactly.  Legal standing.  It's the same reason why I, as a private citizen, cannot press charges or file a lawsuit against someone who commits a crime against someone else.  It has nothing to do with me.  I'm not the victim.  The fact that Space Cowgirl's victimization eventually incriminates me is not relevant to my rights.

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.

I'm not sure, but I think there was a court case about that recently.  The court ruled that if a law enforcement agency asks an individual or organization to perform a role of policing for them, such as conducting searches or seizures, they are acting in the stead of an officer and are bound by the same legal restrictions.  One thing to watch for would be the reaction of the police towards their contractor once the evidence is produced.  Do they get arrested and charged with burglary or theft, like a normal person would?  If not, then the police have obviously granted them the powers of police, and with them, come the limitations of that power.  Basically, you can't have legal power without legal restrictions.