§ 2707(a) (2006) provides that a party “aggrieved” by a violation of the Act may pursue a civil remedy against “the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (2006) states, “[t]he remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter.” The United States District Court for the District of Columbia analyzed the same issue presently before this Court and held that even if the State does not comply with the provisions of the Stored Communications Act, “the statute does not provide for a suppression remedy.” United States v. Ferguson, 508 F.Supp. 2d. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 2007); see also United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>), superseded on other grounds, Konop v.
holding that the stored communications act does not provide an exclusion remedy it allows for civil damages  and criminal punishment    but nothing more holding that 42 usc  1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations holding that a criminal statute does not provide a corresponding civil cause of action holding that civil settlements have no bearing on decisions of criminal punishment and imposition of a restitution order is a form of punishment and part of a criminal sentence holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law