Roger W. Miller - Page 10

                                                - 10 -                                                  

               instant case and that the exclusionary rule should not be                                
               applied.  We consider these contentions seriatim.                                        
               "Zone of Primary Interest"                                                               
                   In United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 458 (1976), the                             
               U.S. Supreme Court mentioned a seizing officer's "zone of                                
               primary interest" but did not elaborate on the phrase.                                   
               Courts have focused on officers' zones of primary interest                               
               to predict whether applying the exclusionary rule in various                             
               contexts would deter future unlawful searches and seizures.                              
               See Grimes v. Commissioner, 82 F.3d 286, 290 (9th Cir.                                   
               1996); Wolf v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 189, 194-196 (6th Cir.                              
               1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-432; Adamson v. Commissioner,                               
               745 F.2d 541, 546 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1982-                                
               371; Tirado v. Commissioner, 689 F.2d 307, 314 (2d Cir.                                  
               1982), affg. 74 T.C. 14 (1980); Black Forge, Inc. v.                                     
               Commissioner, 78 T.C. 1004, 1011-1012 (1982).                                            
                   Presumably, if the proposed use of the evidence is close                             
               to a seizing officer's zone of primary interest, the                                     
               inference is stronger that the officer had this use in mind                              
               when making the seizure.  Tirado v. Commissioner, supra at                               
               311.  To estimate an officer's zone of primary interest,                                 
               courts rely on commonsense assumptions about "human nature                               
               and the interrelationship of the various components of the                               
               law enforcement system." United States v. Janis, supra at                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011