arguing that “our precedent has set us on a collision course with the Supreme Court” by incorporating “the exclusionary rule, with all its attendant costs, back into immigration proceedings, after the Court has taken it out”
How later courts described this case
- arguing that “our precedent has set us on a collision course with the Supreme Court” by incorporating “the exclusionary rule, with all its attendant costs, back into immigration proceedings, after the Court has taken it out”
- “Finally, the Mendoza dicta seems to posit a conjunctive test. To trigger application of the exclusionary rule, the egregious conduct must both (1) transgress notions of fundamental fairness and (2) undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained.” (emphasis, footnote, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
Judge Bybee has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges *1099 Canby and Quackenbush have recommended denial of en bane rehearing.
The petition for en banc rehearing has been circulated to the full court. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.