cert. denied 415 U.S. 932, 94 S.Ct. 1445, 39 L.Ed.2d 490 (1974). Although we agree that evidence showing the military has exercised its authority "pervasively” in a specific case will sustain a finding that the PCA has been violated, the evidence need not rise to that level in order to establish a violation of the PCA. Where an investigation targeting civilians does not have the primary purpose of furthering a military function, even military involvement that falls short of participation in the search, seizure, or arrest of civilians may constitute a violation of the PCA. See discussion of 32 C.F.R. § 213.10, supra section III.A. 22 . See also, e.g., United States v. Griley, 814 F.2d 967, 976 (4th Cir.1987) (refusing to exclude evidence obtained after a search for stolen f 6) (<HOLDING>); State v. Roberts, 14 Kan.App.2d 173, 786 P.2d
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 holding that technical violation of the pca where mp searched a civilian vehicle did not warrant application of the extraordinary remedy of exclusion holding that title vii provides a remedy for civilian employees of military departments but not members of the armed forces holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation