PA: Exclusionary rule does not apply to dentist disciplinary proceedings

Exclusionary rule does not apply to dentist board disciplinary proceedings. The dentist’s office was subjected to a search warrant for patient files. The exclusionary rule does not apply in non-criminal contexts. Kerr v. Pa. State Bd. of Dentistry, 599 Pa. 107, 960 A.2d 427 (2008).

Defendant was illegally detained and the officer had his ID and asked for consent. Since the stop was unlawful, the consent was invalid. State v. Strader, 224 Ore. App. 38, 197 P.3d 40 (2008):

Accordingly, the burden shifted to the state to establish that defendant’s consent was “independent of, or only tenuously related to” the unlawful stop. Hall, 339 Or at 35. As in Highley, the request for consent to search defendant occurred in close temporal proximity to the prior illegality. Moreover, the state has not established that any intervening circumstances or other factors might have mitigated the effect of the unlawful stop on defendant’s subsequent consent to search his person. Because the methamphetamine seized from defendant is the unattenuated product of exploitation of the unlawful stop, the motion to suppress should have been granted.

Officer was in a bar because patrons were refusing to leave. The officer saw apparent cocaine in plain view that the defendant was trying to hide. The plain view was valid. State v. Petty, 2008 Ohio 5962, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 5017 (5th Dist. November 17, 2008).*