active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. BEA, Circuit Judge, with whom O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc because the panel opinion directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (Mendoza), 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984), regarding when we should apply that singular jewel of our legal procedure treasury: the exclusionary rule. In Mendoza, the Supreme Court clearly held the exclusionary rule does not apply to bar illegally procured evidence from admission in a deportation hearing. Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050, 104 S.Ct. 3479 (<HOLDING>). The panel in Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey
holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation hearings where ins must only prove identity and alienage holding that the balance between costs and benefits comes out against applying the exclusionary rule in civil deportation hearings holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that probation and parole revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings such that the state exclusionary rule applies but noting that police misconduct which shocks the conscience may lead to invocation of the exclusionary rule holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings