347-48, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619-20, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 66 . Article 38.23(a) provides, No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused.on the trial of any criminal case. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a); Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347, 94 S.Ct. at 619-20. 67 . See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484, 83 S.Ct. at 416; Smith v. State, 542 S.W.2d 420, 422 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); State v. Mayorga, 876 S.W.2d 176, 177 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994), aff'd and remanded, 901 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). 68 . See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487, 83 S.Ct. at 417; Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). 69 . See Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590,
holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation recognizing this method holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda  holding attenuation analysis applicable under article 3823 as a method of determining whether evidence was obtained in violation of law 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