The following excerpt is from Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 705 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1983):
The dissent's suggestion, see infra p. 1096, that NLRB v. South Bay Daily Breeze, 415 F.2d 360 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 919, 25 L.Ed.2d 96 (1970), dictates application of the rule depending on the civil or criminal character of the case is incorrect. There, we held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied to exclude evidence from an NLRB hearing because the challenged evidence was not seized directly by agents of the government nor with their approval. Id. at 363. Our court noted that the rationale for applying the rule did not exist because "there is no logic in excluding evidence to prevent the government from violating an individual's constitutional rights in a case when the government is not guilty of such a violation." 415 F.2d at 364.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.