The most interesting question to me would be, does this means that the server administrators now have a "get out of jail free card" due to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine or similar?
Hosting a hidden service by itself does not mean doing something illegal, even Facebook hosts a hidden service nowadays. The only valid justification for the seizure would be if they had traced an illegal hidden service to that host, but from what I have read this seizure sounds too indiscriminate for that to be the case (IIRC even some pure relays, which don't host anything at all, were seized).
The most interesting question to me would be, does this means that the server administrators now have a "get out of jail free card" due to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine or similar?
That would require the defendant's rights to have been violated. I'm no doctor of law, but even if they were slipshod enough to violate rights in investigation regarding the datacenters, I'd be surprised if the defendants rights were the ones violated (3rd party doctrine and all).
Hosting a hidden service by itself does not mean doing something illegal, even Facebook hosts a hidden service nowadays. The only valid justification for the seizure would be if they had traced an illegal hidden service to that host, but from what I have read this seizure sounds too indiscriminate for that to be the case (IIRC even some pure relays, which don't host anything at all, were seized).