Unfortunately, this doesn't change anything. But for the record, let's just review a few facts:<p>1 - Ulbricht has never asserted the server belonged to him, as such, he has no assumption of privacy for whatever is on the servers. He could have claimed the servers belonged to him in order to challenge the search, which his legal team opted not to do.<p>2 - By running a site which engages in criminal activity (legally speaking of course) he violated the 3rd paty hosting companies terms of service, which invalidates his right to privacy for anything located on said server.<p>3 - Since the site was trafficking drugs (which is defined as criminal activity) the hacking of the site would still be legal since the FBI doesn't need warrants for such a search:<p><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...</a><p><i>The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275.</i><p>Pretty sure this request will be denied since his legal team didn't assert the information on the server belonged to him in the first place, regardless if the FBI hacked it or not.