determines the scope of the remedy.” Sivann, supra, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267. KindHearts argues that I do not have authority to remedy the Fourth Amendment violation because I have no inherent authority to issue a warrant. In Finazzo, the Sixth Circuit addressed whether a wiretapping statute authorized FBI agents to “secret[ly] ent[er]” an office to install eavesdropping devices. 583 F.2d at 839-42. After holding that the statute did not authorize the action, the court went on to hold: “[Fjederal judicial officers do not possess an inherent power to issue search warrants or inherent power in the absence of statute to authorize law enforcement officers to engage in break-ins in the execution of search warrants.” Id. a, 380 U.S. 693, 696, 700, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Courts have held that in forfeiture
holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that probation and parole revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings such that the state exclusionary rule applies but noting that police misconduct which shocks the conscience may lead to invocation of the exclusionary rule holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings