- 14 -
would be achieved through this attenuated connection. See
United States v. Janis, supra at 448-454 (discussing effect
attenuation has on deterrence in application of exclusionary
rule).
There is no evidence of an agreement that directly links
the Border Patrol and the IRS. Moreover, even if, instead
of the DEA, the practice were between the Border Patrol and
the IRS, the type of informal, voluntary, and discretionary
one-way transfer of information that occurred in this case
would be insufficient to justify application of the
exclusionary rule. See Guzzetta v. Commissioner, supra at
181-182. Therefore, no agreements between agencies in this
case justify imposition of the exclusionary rule.
Bad Faith
Petitioner's contention that the exclusionary rule
should be applied because Reese did not act in good faith
when he seized the subject evidence is based on the
supposition that, although primary, deterrence is not the
only consideration for exclusionary rule application. See
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-1051 (1984)
(egregious Fourth Amendment violations might transgress
notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative
value of the evidence obtained); Elkins v. United States,
364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960) (in addition to deterrence, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011