see also State v. Turner, 257 Kan. 19, 891 P.2d 317, 323 (1995) (generally concluding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings, but opining “there may be instances where the illegal acts of police officers, in the totality of the circumstances, are so egregious that the need for their deterrence outweighs the court’s need for information”); People v. Ressin, 620 P.2d 717, 721 (Colo. 1980) (in the absence of evidence that law enforcement officers “knowingly engaged in a pretext arrest and exploratory search of the defendant because of his probationary status,” or engaged in a course of harassment or other egregious misconduct, the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings); State v. Sears, 558 P.2d 907, 914 (Alaska 1976) (<HOLDING>). Our review of the decisions of our sister
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 embodied in the search and seizure provision of the state constitution applies in probation revocation proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding judicial exclusionary rule inapplicable to administrative license revocation proceedings but acknowledging application of statutory exclusionary rules where applicable