How have courts interpreted the exclusionary rule adopted by the California Supreme Court in the context of Proposition 8?

People v. Weaver (1985) 39 Cal.3d 694, 217 Cal.Rptr. 245, 703 P.2d 1139 concluded the exclusionary remedy adopted in People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 533 P.2d 1024, which establishes use immunity in a subsequent trial on criminal charges for the testimony of a probationer given at a probation revocation hearing, "survived Proposition 8 because that remedy falls within the exception to section 28, subdivision (d), which preserves preexisting statutory privileges." (39 Cal.3d at pp. 656-657, 217 Cal.Rptr. 245, 703 P.2d 1139.) Thus the court in Weaver implicitly found that Proposition 8 was applicable to a state exclusionary remedy for violation of a constitutional provision other than search and seizure, but concluded that an express exception stated in the initiative saved the exclusionary rule in this case.