MN: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to state tax proceedings

In this state tax case, the taxpayer claimed revenuers came to his liquor store and searched and seized by downloading his Quickbooks file to a flash drive. The state tax court holds that, even if the search was unreasonable, the exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to tax proceedings. JA-KE of Eagle Lake v. Comm’r of Revenue, 2016 Minn. Tax LEXIS 37 (Aug. 2, 2016):

We conclude that the exclusionary rule does not apply to the present situation for several reasons. First, no Minnesota case expressly applies the exclusionary rule to a purely civil proceeding, much less to a tax proceeding. Although the supreme court has held that the rule may be applied in forfeiture proceedings, this was based upon the quasi-criminal nature of a forfeiture proceeding. Further, Ascher rules that the exclusionary rule does not “preclude an administrative agency from considering evidence” previously found unconstitutional.

Second, the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future police misconduct. As police were not involved in this matter, we cannot see how excluding the QuickBooks records would deter future police misconduct. …

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.