United States v. Solomon, 679 F.2d 1246, 1260 (8th Cir.1982). Kriens has failed to make such a showing. Kriens argues that federal authorities obtained information about his knowledge of drug-related activities in Mason City Symens. The district court specifically rejected that claim, finding there were any number of ways federal prosecutors could have obtained the information. That finding is not clearly erroneous. Further, any such information was irrelevant to the prosecution. It was unnecessary for federal authorities to prove Kriens was knowledgeable about drug activities in Mason City to succeed in the firearms prosecution. Thus, even assuming Symens disclosed confidential communications, the proper remedy would be suppression of the information. Cf. Solomon, 679 F.2d at 1251-52 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Kriens’ claim that the
holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that the proper remedy if the superseding indictment operates to prejudice a defendant is a continuance holding that when government agents obtained information by means of a constitutional intrusion the proper remedy absent a showing of prejudice is exclusion of the information not dismissal of the indictment