The stuff Nick accessed was clearly illegal. I'm not so sure about whether or not if April accessing the phone records is as clear cut. Especially if she was still on his phone plan, even if they were separated/divorced she could argue that she should have still had access to some of those records. Bare minimum, if Aaron DID still have her on the phone plan, she at least can say that her access wasn't improper.
The data she would have to look at to confirm him sending a message at a certain time to Geno is clearly not part of the data she has a right to access.
That is neither payment, billing or her personal user data. You also have to remember that Aaron was a potential witness against April at the time of this, even if he also could not have testified without her consent due to MN law.
Even if someone would rule her access was not improper, sharing of the data with an outside party clearly is.
Which in this case is Nick, who received illegally obtained information to artificially create a case against a witness against him in both his CHIPS case (Aaron could have testified about what he observed) and in his criminal possession case as well.
Considering what we now believe happened further, the continued access of Aarons phone/google accounts and grabbing of other private data, pictures, videos (potentially nudes of other women that were copied and distributed), I do not believe the state could win an argument to suppress the evidence that was illegally obtained to harass and intimidate a witness.
My apologies if this has also been covered in the discussion, but could the Divorce Arc throw a wrench in this? Or would Nick still be protected from Kayla's testimony for anything that occurred during the marriage (that doesn't involve DV/CA/etc)?
Divorce does not negate this. Kayla cannot testify against Nick other than in exception cases which I believe would include crimes he committed against her or their children. So no flipping on Nick in the coke case, unless they try to hitch it onto the Child Neglect charge, but she would likely implicate herself, so no sane lawyer would advise her to do this