heard p es for violations of § 6103, but no statutory provision requires the exclusion of evidence so obtained. 26 U.S.C. § 7431 (establishing a private right of action for civil damages against the United States as a remedy if a federal officer knowingly or negligently violates § 6103); 26 U.S.C. § 7213(a)(1) (providing that the willful disclosure by a federal officer of any return or return information is a federal crime); 26 U.S.C. § 7213A (making it unlawful for any federal officer or employee to inspect records in violation of § 6103). Where Congress has provided a particular remedy for the violation of a statute, that remedy, and not judicially imposed remedies, should apply in the absence of a constitutional violation. United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 424-25 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The exclusionary rule is therefore
holding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to alleged violations of 18 usc  201c2 which establishes criminal penalties for paying a witness to testify noting that generally when congress has designated a specific remedy for violation of one of its acts courts should presume that congress has engaged in the necessary balancing of interests to determine the appropriate penalty holding that where congress has directed the agency to issue a rule without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule  congress has amended the law and does not offend the constitution holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to knockandannounce violations holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right or evidence that congress intended exclusion as a remedy