at military dependent's on-base home; the defendant phoned his mother and told her to dispose of a bag in the attic of her off-base home; she asked a friend to do it, but the friend turned the rifle over to authorities); United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d at 568 (noting that "the clear costs of applying an exclusionary rule are not countervailed by any discernible benefits” especially where the unauthorized use of Navy equipment in violation of the PCA was “unintentional and in good faith"); United States v. Wolffs, 594 F.2d 77 (5th Cir.1979) (refusing to consider whether CID investigators' act of disarming and detaining defendants violated PCA because application of exclusionary rule not warranted under Walden, supra ); United States v. Rasheed, 802 F.Supp. 312, 324 (D.Haw.1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490, 548 P.2d 819
holding that there was no violation in a joint navycoast guard drug interdiction operation on the high seas and inferring in dicta that there is now no such need to deter future violations of 10 usc  375 based on the absence of any ninth circuit case applying the exclusionary rule to such violations recognizing that there is dicta and then there is dicta and then there is supreme court dicta holding that a district courts discretion is not unbridled and that it must weigh finding of violation against factors indicating reasonable likelihood that violations will not recur such as intent to comply extraordinary efforts to prevent recurrence absence of repetitive violations and absence of bad faith holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations