- 7 -
before them. The Court stated that civil enforcement of Federal
tax laws lay outside the "zone of interest" of the State police
officers involved in Janis. As a result of that and other
factors, the Court concluded that excluding tainted evidence in a
civil tax proceeding was unlikely to have a significant deterrent
effect. The Court left open the possibility, however, that the
balance might shift in favor of exclusion if the State police
officer involved had a "responsibility or duty to, or agreement
with" Federal tax officials. Id. at 455.
Since Janis, courts considering whether to apply the
exclusionary rule in Federal civil tax cases have examined the
"zone of interest" of the police officers involved and have
generally looked for some sort of agreement between Federal tax
officials and the officers who conducted the allegedly improper
search. See, e.g., Tirado v. Commissioner, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.
1982), affg. on other grounds 74 T.C. 14 (1980). Tirado extended
the Janis rationale to a case where some of the officers
conducting the search were employed by a Federal agency, namely
the Bureau of Narcotics, and another Federal agency, i.e., the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), sought to use the allegedly
tainted evidence (a so-called intrasovereign situation). In
Tirado, Federal narcotics agents took part in a search that
uncovered cash, documents, and other items which were later
sought to be used in a Federal civil tax proceeding. Although
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011