that Dina told him about the allegations, the court must have believed that James did not obtain the information illegally. We find both parties’ reasoning to be flawed. The Fourth Amendment has no application in this context. James Pannunzio committed the illegal act without the assistance or appeal of the government. See United States v. Jacobsen (1984), 466 U.S. 109, 113-114, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85, 94. See, also, State v. Ford (Oct. 9, 1987), Lucas App. No. L-86- 338, unreported, 1987 WL 18126 (explaining that even though evidence is secured illegally by a private person and turned over to the police, possession by the police does not invoke the exclusionary rule); and Walter v. United States (1980), 447 U.S. 649, 657, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 2402, 65 L.Ed.2d 410, 418 (<HOLDING>). Davies’ reliance on Perkins and Nix is
holding that where defendant consented to search of his car and stood by as agent conducted a thorough and systematic search which included removal of vehicles back seat and raising of cars rear quarter panel defendants failure to object to search indicated search was within scope of consent holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted holding that a significant expansion by police of the search that had been conducted previously by a private party must be characterized as a separate search holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that contraband would have been inevitably discovered where agents conducted a warrantless search while obtaining a search warrant and later conducted a second legal search in which agents discovered contraband