that the police department violated its internal policy guidelines, this alone does not warrant habeas relief. See Cotz v. Mastroeni, 476 F.Supp.2d 332, 373 n. 44 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (“Plaintiff also appears to claim that the Ramapo Police Department violated her constitutional rights when they sent officers to take Weidel’s statement after this confrontation prior to sending someone to plaintiffs residence when, in fact, plaintiff called the police first. Plaintiff emphasizes that this constituted a violation of the Ramapo Police Department’s policy. Even if this does in fact constitute a violation of internal policy, it does not give rise to a cognizable claim pursuant to [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.”) (citing United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-57, 99 S.Ct. 1465, 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979) (<HOLDING>)). 3. Denial of Sixth Amendment Right to
holding that failure of irs agent to follow irs electronic surveillance regulations before recording conversations between taxpayer and agent did not require suppression of tape recordings in prosecution of taxpayer accused of bribing irs agent since irs was not required by constitution to adopt its regulations governing electronic surveillance violation of agency regulations did not raise constitutional questions holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation holding that expert testimony of irs agent regarding tax liability did not usurp the function of the jury as agent did not give her opinion about the guilt of the defendant holding that evidence obtained in violation of internal revenue service regulations was admissible at the criminal trial of a taxpayer accused of bribing a service agent