KLEIN, Justice.
On October 31,1991, Michael Pattioay, Jay Rodrigues (Jay R.), Rosaline Rodrigues (Rodrigues), and Dwayne Gould (collectively Defendants-Appellees) were charged with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree (Counts I-VII), in violation of Ha-wai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1242(l)(c) (Supp.1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (Count VIII), in violation of HRS § 712-1242(l)(B)(ii) (Supp.1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (Count IX), in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (Supp.1992), and Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia (Count X), in violation of HRS § 329~43.5(a) (Supp.1992). Rodrigues was also charged in another criminal action with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1242(l)(c) (Additional Count). The circuit court consolidated both actions and issued an order (Or-' der) granting in part Rodrigues’ motion to suppress, in which the other Defendants-Appellees had joined.
The prosecution filed a timely notice of appeal on September 1, 1993, arguing that the court committed reversible error in granting the motion to suppress by basing its decision on erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
At the hearing on their motion to suppress, the Defendants-Appellees called David Foster as a witness. Foster is a military police officer attached to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Department (Army CID). Foster testified that he was assigned as an undercover agent to a joint operation between the Army CID and the Wahiawa Crime Reduction Unit of the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). The Army CID had been involved previously in joint operations [457]*457with the HPD using undercover operations to target suspected civilian drug dealers.
Poster further testified that he was given guidelines for “targeting” civilians in military investigations, which specify as follows: where a soldier, military dependant or Department of Defense (DOD) civilian has stated that drugs had been purchased from civilians, a sufficient military connection exists to justify controlled “off post” drug purchases, including surveillance of alleged civilian drug suppliers. Before taking such action, a form had to be prepared and forwarded to military headquarters for authorization. Once authorization was received, the Army CID called the HPD Crime Reduction Unit and planned an undercover operation targeting the civilians suspected of selling drugs to military personnel.
Foster estimated that over fifty percent of the undercover activities performed by the Army CID during his tenure were directed against civilian targets. Foster also testified that he personally worked as an undercover agent in more than twenty-five but less than fifty eases where civilians were targeted. According to Foster, whenever a targeted civilian was “off post,” HPD was always involved.
The Army CID initiated the investigation in the instant case when the military obtained information about the purchase of drugs from the Defendants-Appellees by Tanya Slaten, a military dependent who was under investigation by the military police. Another Army CID agent subsequently “turned” Slaten into an informant sometime in February 1989. Foster participated in briefing sessions at Schofield Barracks on April 13, 1989 concerning a controlled drug purchase to be made that day at the Defendants-Appellees’ civilian residence in Wahia-wa. HPD Officer George Clark was also present at these briefings.
Following the briefing, Foster and Slaten drove to the Wahiawa house where he and Slaten were invited inside. . Foster was specifically asked to present identification. Rodrigues was present, but Foster purchased two packets of cocaine from Gould. The packets were later submitted to Foster’s superiors and field tested by military personnel before being turned over to Clark.
On April 19,1989, Foster (accompanied by a surveillance team made up of two other Army CID agents and Clark) returned to the Wahiawa house and purchased two more packets of cocaine from Pattioay. Before purchasing the cocaine, Foster showed Pat-tioay his military identification card as Pat-tioay had instructed.
On May 10,1989, Foster went to the Wah-iawa house once again, and Gould sold him two more packets of cocaine. After this pirn-chase, Foster submitted the drugs to Clark. Then, on May 31, 1989, Foster bought two additional packets of cocaine from Rodrigues. On June 28, 1989, Foster attempted to make another purchase at the Wahiawa home but learned that the Defendants-Appellees had moved to another location. At this new location, Foster again purchased drugs from Rodrigues and Gould. As in all previous buys, Foster was armed and the surveillance team provided protection for him. The drugs were once again submitted to Clark’s custody.
Finally, Rodrigues sold Foster cocaine on August 15,1990 under similar conditions. At this sale, however, the surveillance team was made up of three Army CID agents plus three HPD officers, including Clark. Sometime after this sale, HPD searched the house and arrested the Defendants-Appellees. Foster testified that he believed the search warrant prepared for the house from which the Defendants-Appellees sold the cocaine was based in part on the transaction of August 15, 1990. Military personnel neither prepared nor executed the search warrant nor participated in the arrests.
Clark testified that he has participated in over one hundred joint investigations with the Schofield Drug Suppression Team. In all these investigations, the military would initiate the cases on post and, if civilians were involved, contact HPD for “jurisdictional reasons.” Clark’s assignment was to “initiate cases, document them, ... and assist [the Army CID] in narcotics investigations” by providing back-up and surveillance. He would also obtain physical evidence from the undercover Army CID personnel and place [458]*458the evidence with HPD for storage and subsequent civilian criminal prosecution. The Army CID did not assist Clark in completing the case; this was Clark’s responsibility. Army CID neither assisted in the arrest nor the search of the Defendants-Appellees’ residence.
Over the objections of Rodrigues’s attorney, the circuit court allowed Army CID Special Agent Scott May to testily as to the general procedure followed in submitting requests to Army headquarters in Korea for its approval of off-post investigations by Army CID. Although May had no personal knowledge of this case, other than what he had read, the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence two Army CID documents concerning a request and approval for this joint civilian-military investigation. Despite continuous objections by counsel for one of the Defendants-Appellees,1 the court allowed May to testify concerning the two proffered documents, “as an example of what happens.”
May testified that, in general, after receiving information about civilians selling significant amounts of drugs to military members, a request is sent to regional headquarters in Korea requesting authorization to proceed with an investigation. When the prosecution attempted to connect May’s testimony to the proffered documents, the court sustained defense counsel’s hearsay objections, but eventually overruled an objection based on a lack of foundation with respect to May’s personal knowledge of the relevant events. Consequently, May testified that the request and approval procedure was followed in the instant case. The court then admitted the proffered evidence, but only “as proof of the operative facts, that ... requests were made for approval and approval was received ... to initiate the investigation or the undercover operation.... Whether or not the facts underlying approval were correct or not is not at issue.”2 Defense counsel promptly reasserted the HRE Rule 106 objection, see supra note 1, arguing that approval was not properly granted under the appropriate military regulations, and suggesting that this could be shown through documents not included in the prosecution’s incomplete proffer of evidence. Nevertheless, the court overruled the objection, stating that counsel could either: (1) submit a written motion for reconsideration identifying the additional documentation required; or (2) elicit the necessary information under cross-examination.
On cross-examination, May acknowledged that the documentary evidence allegedly shoving “approval” by military command was not actual approval. He stated that “[t]he approval comes by voice” and that he did not have any personal knowledge that such approval was in fact given, only that the file indicated approval was provided in compliance with military regulations. See 32 C.F.R. §§ 213(a)(2) and (3). Defense counsel then made renewed objections to the prosecution’s evidence and also moved to strike Foster’s testimony concerning the approval process. The court denied the motion and indicated that it would take the matter under advisement.
After oral arguments, the court obviated a review of its preliminary evidentiary rulings by filing an order suppressing all evidence obtained by the military relating to the Additional Count,3 and Counts IV through X.4 [459]*459Although no member of the military was involved in the search that led to the recovery of evidence at issue in Counts IX and X, the evidence was nonetheless suppressed because the search was performed pursuant to warrants based in part on the transactions in Counts IV through VIII:
The transactions in Counts IV through VIII ... and the buy [resulting in the Additional Count] ... clearly involved the direct assistance “... of military personnel for surveillance ... or as undercover agents ...” in direct contravention of 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(3)(iv)....
Admittedly, the interdiction of drug trafficking is in the military interest, as it is in the civilian interest. Yet there is nothing here which indicates that this military operation was “taken for the primary purpose of furthering a military ... function of the United States.” 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(2)(i).... No military function was involved here. Rather, what was involved here were off-post sales by civilians only, a matter clearly within the scope of civilian law enforcement responsibility. Indeed, as indicated at the hearing, HPD had already made three separate buys through its own police undercover agent from the Rodrigues’ home prior to the military operation (see Counts I through III ...).
Further buttressing this finding of a violation under 32 C.F.R. § 213 is House Report No. 97-71 [sic] on 10 U.S.C. 375 which states that “[t]he Committee adopted the view of the Department of Justice that the weight of authority on [sic] the Posse Comitatus Act ‘prohibits the use of military personnel as informants, undercover agents, or non-custodial interrogators in a civilian criminal investigation that does not involve potential military defendants or is not intended to lead to any official action by the armed forces.’ [Citation omitted.]”
32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(3) was written in aid of the enforcement of the Posse Comi-tatus Act.... Here, the repeated instances of the military involvement as evidenced above were largely independent and pervasive. ... The military control and involvement was clearly pervasive and largely unregulated by civilian law enforcement officials based on evidence presented at the hearings herein.... In view of the foregoing, the need to deter the pattern of conduct hereinabove described is clear. Under the particular circumstances of this case, suppression is warranted.
Order at 5-7 (emphasis in original).
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A circuit court’s findings of fact (FOF) are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Furutani, 76 Hawai'i 172, 179, 873 P.2d 51, 58 (1994) (citing State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 328, 861 P.2d 11, 22 (1993)). “An FOF is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. The circuit court’s conclusions of law are reviewed under the right/ wrong standard. Id. at 180, 873 P.2d at 59 (citing In re Estate of Holt, 75 Haw. 224, 234, 857 P.2d 1355, reconsideration denied, 75 Haw. 580, 863 P.2d 989 (1993)).
III. DISCUSSION
The prosecution argues that ferreting out persons who supply illegal drugs to military personnel is a “primary purpose” of the military; therefore, suppression was not appropriate. The Defendants-Appellees counter that the circuit court’s interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act and related military regulations was correct. See 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1385 (1988).5
[460]*460A. The Posse Comitatus Act
The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) was passed shortly alter the end of the Reconstruction Era and was designed to “put an end to the use of federal troops to police state election[s] in the ex-Confederate state[s] where the civil power had been reestablished.” Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921, 936 (1st Cir.1949), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918, 69 S.Ct. 640, 93 L.Ed. 1081, rehearing denied, 336 U.S. 947, 69 S.Ct. 809, 93 L.Ed. 1103 (1949). In 1981, Congress enacted certain measures to clarify the permissible nature of military cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies under the PCA. For example, 10 U.S.C. § 375 (1988) provides:
Restriction on direct participation by military personnel.
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
(Emphasis added.) A House of Representatives Committee report accompanying this legislation anticipated, nonetheless, that “an increased sensitivity to the needs of civilian law enforcement officials, particularly in drug enforcement, will permit more compatible mission planning and execution.” United States v. Hartley, 796 F.2d 112, 115 n. 6 (5th Cir.1986) (citing H.Rep. No. 71, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, 8 (1981), reprinted in 1981 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1781,1791 n. 1) (emphasis added).6 Accordingly, the use of military equipment, and the reporting of information received incidentally to normal operations (e.g., training exercises), is clearly permitted by law. See 10 U.S.C. § 374 (1988). Nevertheless, direct involvement of military personnel in civilian law enforcement is generally prohibited. See 10 U.S.C. § 375, supra.
In compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 375, the Secretary of Defense promulgated a directive in April 1982, entitled “DOD Cooperation With Civilian Law Enforcement Officials.” See 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(3)(iv) (1989). This directive includes a prohibition on the “[u]se of military personnel for surveillance or pursuit of individuals, or as informants, undercover agents, investigators or interrogators.” Id.; see also H.R.Rep. No. 71, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, 8 (1981), reprinted in 1981 U.S.Code Cong. & AdmimNews 1781,1791 n. 1. However, “depending upon the nature of the DOD interest and the specific action in question,” the following purposes are permissible: “[a]ctions related to enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47),” and “such other actions that are undertaken primarily for a military ... purpose.” 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(2)(i)(A) & (F)’.7 Hortatory language contained in this subsection nevertheless provides that the “primary military purpose” exception “must be used with caution, and does not include actions taken for the primary purpose of aiding civilian law enforcement officials or otherwise serving as a subterfuge to avoid [461]*461the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.” 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(2)(i).
In addition, the DOD has issued a policy memorandum that allows military assistance in civilian law enforcement only when the following specific guidelines are met:
(1) If there are reasonable grounds to believe that [a person not subject to the U.C.M.J.] has committed a drug offense in conjunction with a member of the Armed Forces and the investigative actions are undertaken to obtain evidence concerning all illegal drug transactions between such person and any member of the Armed Farces, or
(2) If there are reasonable grounds to believe that such person is the immediate source of the introduction of illegal drugs onto the military installation and the investigative actions are undertaken to obtain evidence concerning all persons engaged in drug trafficking on the installation.
See Moon v. State, 785 P.2d 45, 46-47 (Alaska Ct.App.1990) (emphasis added), affirmed, Kim v. State, 817 P.2d 467 (Alaska 1991). In other words, incidental enhancement of civilian law enforcement is permissible in limited circumstances. “[Wjhere there is an independent military purpose of preventing illicit drug transactions to support the military involvement, the coordination of military police efforts with those of civilian law enforcement officials does not violate” the PCA. Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100, 103 (7th Cir.1990).8
Congress was evidently aware of “calls for the military to be directly involved in search, seizure, and arrests” but did not think it “appropriate to make such a radical break with the historic separation between military and civilian functions[.]” Hse.Conf.Rpt. No. 989, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., at 452 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2503, 2580. The conferees addressed this issue further by writing the following:
The demand by some for use of the military in drug-related arrests would quickly fade in the face of actual law enforcement confrontations between the uniformed military and American civilians. As former Chief Justice Burger has noted, the American experience has been marked by “a traditional and strong resistance ... to any military intrusion into civilian affairs. That tradition has deep roots in our history....” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S.C. [U.S.] 1, 15 [92 S.Ct. 2318, 2327, 33 L.Ed.2d 154] (1972). The Posse Comitatus Act, as one court has noted, is not ‘an anachronistic relic of an historical period the experience of which is irrelevant to the present. It expresses the inherited antipathy of the American to the use of troops for civil purposes.... Its relevance to this age is sadly clear.’ Wrynn v. United States, 200 F.Supp. 457, 465 (E.D.N.Y.1961).
In testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Secretary of Defense Carlucei noted: “... I am even more firmly opposed to any relaxation of the posse comitatus restrictions on the use of the military to search, seize, and arrest.... The historical tradition which separates military and civilian authority in this country has served both to protect the civil liberties of our citizens and to keep our Armed Forces militarily focused and at a high state of readiness.”
Id. at 453, 1988 U.S.Code & Cong.Admin.News at 2581-82.
The following year, Congress heralded the success of coordinated military/civilian drug-interdiction efforts, but clearly expressed its commitment to retaining restrictions on more direct military involvement with civilian law enforcement:
The [National] Guard program of assisting Customs in the inspection of cargo at land, sea and air ports of entry—a resounding success with no adverse public reaction— should be extended to active duty and reserve forces as well. The Army has supported U.S. and Bahamian efforts in the Bahamas by using Blackhawk helicopters [462]*462to chase smugglers and transport arresting officers. This program can be expanded without directly involving military personnel in law enforcement confrontations with citizens.
Hse.Rep. No. 121, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., at 320 (1989), reprinted in 1989 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 838, 941 (emphasis added).
B. Examining the Purpose of Military Involvement in the Instant Case
In an effort to advance its argument that the primary purpose of the joint civilian-military investigation in the instant case was to further valid military interests, the prosecution contends that many of the circuit court’s FOF are clearly erroneous. With the exception of its claims regarding FOF 9 and 15, the prosecution merely asserts that the court “fail[ed] to recite” certain facts about the incidents at issue in this case. However, the alleged omissions in FOF 3, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 16 merely reflect elements that the prosecution either failed to present at the suppression hearing, or that are insignificant to the court’s ruling.9 In other words, the prosecution did not produce sufficient evidence to support its contention that the military’s investigation of the Defendants-Appellees was for a valid military purpose. Army CID Agent May’s otherwise pertinent testimony was only admitted “as an example of what happens.” See supra at 457-458, 896 P.2d at 913-914.10
Concerning FOF 9,11 the prosecution argues that this finding represents a “material misstatement of fact ... inasmuch as it leaves the impression Defendants[-Appel-lees] were subjected to an overbearing and unlawful military presence which was clearly not the case.” However, the record expressly supports FOF 9, the prosecution’s criticism notwithstanding.
The prosecution makes a similar claim with respect to FOF 15,12 asserting that the cir[463]*463cuit court’s finding is clearly erroneous because “[p]ossession and distribution of cocaine are violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice[.]” Be that as it may, “[a]ll of the persons ‘targeted’ by the aforesaid undercover DST operation involved herein were civilians; no military personnel were involved as ‘targets’ of the investigation.” FOF 12 (emphasis added). The military does not have jurisdiction over civilians in peacetime. See Schleuter, Military Criminal Justice 152 (3rd Ed.1992). Furthermore, article I, section 16 of the Hawaii State Constitution (State Constitution) provides that “[t]he military shall be held in strict subordination to the civil power.” See also Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325, 66 S.Ct. 606, 616, 90 L.Ed. 688 (1945) (Murphy, J., concurring).13
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding in FOF 12 that the undercover operation conducted by military investigators only targeted civilians. Furthermore, the record does not reflect any attempt to connect the sale of drugs by the Defendants-Appellees to any military personnel other than the controlled sale to Army CID agent Foster; nor is there any evidence that the Army CID made any attempt to follow drug trafficking between the Defendants-Appellees and the base. Prior to the controlled purchases in the instant case, the only suggestion of an on-base connection was the claim by the Army CID’s informer, Tanya Slaten, a military dependent.14 See supra note 2 (indicating that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient connection between the Defendants-Appellees and any military personnel or installation). The only evidence arguably suggesting a primary military purpose is the affidavit of an Army CID operations officer that contains the bare, unsupported assertion that “[a]t all times, [the Army CID]’s primary purpose in participating in joint off-post drug investigations is to investigate the distribution of illicit drugs to soldiers and to halt the introduction of those drugs onto military installations.” But see supra note 10. In light of the record as a whole, we are not convinced that any of the challenged circuit court findings are clearly erroneous.
The prosecution nevertheless argues that State v. Hayes, 102 N.C.App. 777, 404 S.E.2d 12 (1991), which validated the incidental enhancement of local law enforcement efforts by military investigators, should persuade us to validate the Army CID’s involvement in this case. In Hayes, an AWOL soldier under investigation for drug-trafficking told an undercover Army CID agent that he could acquire cocaine from a person he knew in the military, presumably at a residence located off-base. The agent contacted local law enforcement and went with the AWOL soldier to the residence in an attempt to purchase drugs from the suspected military dealer. At the apartment, Hayes identified himself as a member of the military and, in conjunction with two other individuals, sold several ounces of cocaine to the undercover Army CID agent. Unaware that the agent had set up a controlled buy, the AWOL soldier [464]*464bagged the drugs, carried them out, and was subsequently arrested by local law enforcement. The Army CID agent later identified the other participants in the transaction. The North Carolina Court of Appeals subsequently held that the military assistance did not violate the PCA. Id. 404 S.E.2d at 15. Hayes is clearly distinguishable from the instant case because the target of the investigation was a member of the military. See also United States v. Thompson, 30 M.J. 570 (A.F.C.M.R.1990), affirmed, 33 M.J. 218 (C.M.A.1991) (involving a joint civilian/military investigation of a member of the Air Force).
The Alaska Court of Appeals also upheld •the incidental enhancement of civilian law enforcement efforts by military investigators in Moon, supra. In Moon, a lieutenant in the Anchorage Police Department (APD) sought the assistance of the Army CID for a narcotics investigation because the local dealers seemed to target military personnel. 785 P.2d at 46. Before the military authorities actually entered into a joint investigation with the APD, they obtained independent verification of illicit drug activity involving military personnel. Specifically, members of the Army’s drug suppression team observed other soldiers buying drugs in the vicinity of the area under investigation and saw vehicles with Fort Richardson registration stickers parked nearby. Id. “The [joint] investigation was not begun until the military was satisfied that drug dealers at the Palace Hotel had targeted military personnel as a market. It was also reasonable to infer that a substantial quantity of illicit drugs was finding its way onto the base.” Id. at 48 (citing Harker v. State, 663 P.2d 932, 936 (Alaska 1983)). Unlike the instant case, a sufficient military connection was clearly established in Moon. See also Hawes, 921 F.2d at 103 (involving drug purchase by Naval Investigative Services agent across the street from a naval base, after a sailor who was found in possession of cocaine apparently identified that location as the place of purchase; court stated that agent’s “activities were much like those of an undercover civilian cooperating with the police in a controlled drug transaction”).
The prosecution claims that the Army CID possessed “information identifying Defendants[-Appellees] as traffickers in significant amounts of drugs to military personnel who brought the drugs back to the installation.” The prosecution also makes the unsupported assertion that Ms. Slaten’s information was “reliable.”15 However, the admissible evi-dentiary facts of this case reveal that the prosecution merely showed that the Army CID requested and received approval to initiate the investigation. Army CID agent May’s testimony and the prosecution’s Exhibits were not admitted to prove the truth of the underlying facts presented to the Army CID’s command. See supra note 2. Given the state of the record, the prosecution has not shown that the military had reasonable grounds to believe that military personnel had violated the U.C.M.J. when the investigation was authorized. Cf. State v. Sherlock, 70 Haw. 271, 768 P.2d 1290 (1989) (reversing lower court’s order suppressing evidence obtained under a search warrant after inquiring into the informant’s reliability and noting that the police corroborated the information given by the unnamed informant before requesting the search warrant).16
Where the target of a military investigation is a civilian and there is no verified connection to military personnel, the PCA prohibits military participation in activities designed to execute civilian laws. People v. Tyler (Tyler I), 854 P.2d 1366 (Colo.App. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 874 P.2d 1037 (Colo.1994) (Tyler 77 ).17 Cf. State v. Prop[465]*465ios, 76 Hawai'i 474, 879 P.2d 1057 (1994) (affirming a circuit court order suppressing evidence obtained in a probationary search that was conducted for the subjectively improper purpose of criminal prosecution). In fact, the apparent justification for the military involvement in the instant case was to facilitate the enforcement of civilian laws. See supra note 10. In Tyler I, the Colorado Court of Appeals stated:
before the military may directly participate in an undercover investigation of these civilians and their off-base activities, the state carries the burden of demonstrating that there exists a nexus between drug sales off base by civilians to military personnel and the military base at which the purchasers are stationed. See Moon v. State, supra. Hence, the prosecution has a duty to present evidence to show that, when a military investigation was undertaken, the targeted drug transactions involved military personnel or were connected to sales conducted on a military installation.
854 P.2d at 1369 (emphases added and citations omitted); see also Moon, 785 P.2d at 46-47 (citing two conditions that must be met in order for the military to investigate persons not subject to the U.C.M.J.).18
Furthermore, we agree with the observation in Chief Justice Rabinowitz’s dissent in Kim v. State, supra; he observed that an independent military interest in the health and safety of its personnel does not establish a “military function” or “primary [military] purpose” under 32 C.F.R. § 213.10(a)(2)(i). 817 P.2d at 471 & 471 n. 10. That the military has a valid interest in ferreting out those who supply drugs to military personnel,19 does not automatically qualify its aid to civilian drug law enforcement as having the “primary purpose of furthering a military ... function[.]” Id.; cf. Propios, supra. Accord, Taylor v. State, 645 P.2d 522, 525 (Okla.Crim.1982) (involving a military police officer who violated the PCA by actively participating in an undercover drug operation, arrest, and search—including the act of drawing his gun during the arrest, participating in a subsequent search, and processing the evidence seized therein).20
Although the Army CID apparently received authorization from military command to initiate an undercover investigation of civilians and their off-base activities, this fact alone cannot justify the military’s participation in the instant case. Cf. Tyler I, 854 P.2d at 1370 (noting that the prosecution failed to present any evidence purporting to establish the necessary nexus to military personnel or on-base effects). The approval request and authorization documents themselves suggest a primary purpose of facilitating civilian law enforcement, see supra note 10; consequently, the stated military purpose in the instant case is merely incidental to an improper objective.21
[466]*466At the hearing on Defendants-Appellees’ motion to suppress for alleged violation of the PCA, the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence was on the Defendants-Appellees to support the claim that a joint civilian-military investigation violated the PCA. See State v. Scanlan, 65 Haw. 159, 160-61, 649 P.2d 737, 738 (1982). The Defendants-Appellees’ burden was met in the instant case through the testimony of Army CID agent Foster and, ironically, the approval request and authorization documents that defense counsel objected to during the suppression hearing. See supra notes 1 and 10. Absent evidence to support the prosecution’s claim of a primary military purpose, we must uphold the circuit court’s conclusion that the joint civilian-military investigation violated the PCA, 10 U.S.C. § 375, and relevant federal regulations.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the circuit court’s holding that “there is nothing here which indicates that this military operation was ‘taken for the primary purpose of furthering a military ... function of the United States.’” Order at 6 (original emphasis omitted). Therefore, the only question remaining is whether the evidence must be suppressed.
C. The Exclusionary Rule
The prosecution argues that the evidence should not be suppressed, even assuming that the PCA was violated, because (1) the Army CID did not act “precipitously in clear violation of the [PCA] ” and (2) there is no history of PCA violations in this state. The Defendants-Appellees urge us to uphold the circuit court’s suppression order based on a violation of article I, § 16 of the State Constitution, and under the basic tenets of the exclusionary rule.
The conclusion that the PCA was violated does not lead inexorably to a ruling that Defendants-Appellees are entitled to the remedy of suppression. “A defendant who seeks to benefit from the protections of the exclusionary rule has the burden of establishing not only that the evidence sought to be excluded was unlawfully secured, but also that his own constitutional rights were violated by the search and seizure challenged.” Scanlan, 65 Haw. at 160-61, 649 P.2d at 738. The Defendants-Appellees do not provide, nor could we find, any support for the contention that article I, section 16 of the State Constitution provides a personal right to be free from military involvement in the investigation of civilian criminal activity. The only protection against such activity comes from the PCA.
Unlike the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, the PCA does not spawn personal rights; therefore, exclusion is not theoretically necessary as an added deterrent to the serious criminal sanctions provided in the PCA. See United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372, 376-77 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 983, 94 S.Ct. 2385, 40 L.Ed.2d 760 rehearing denied, 417 U.S. 977, 94 S.Ct. 3187, 41 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1974). It should be noted, however, that during a hearing preceding the adoption of 10 U.S.C. § 375, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice admitted that “no one has been charged or prosecuted under the [PCA] since its enactment.” Hse.Rep. No. 71, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, 5 (1981), 1981 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1781,1787. Nevertheless, the relevant federal regulations provide “no mechanism for enforcement and the [PCA] ... does not provide that ‘[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.’ ” Walden, 490 F.2d at 376 (citing Judge Cardozo’s opinion in People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926)). Consequently, “where a violation of the [PCA] is found or suspected, courts have generally found that creation or application [467]*467of an exclusionary rule is not warranted.” Hartley, 796 F.2d at 115.22
Some courts have concluded, nonetheless, that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the PCA is permissible where a “need to deter future violations is demonstrated.” United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d at 568; see also Walden, 490 F.2d at 377 (indicating a willingness to consider adoption of an exclusionary rule “as a future deterrent” in the event of “widespread or repeated” violations of the PCA). However, contrary to the finding made by the circuit court, the record evidence in the instant ease does not establish a pattern of PCA violations.23
Consequently, this case presents the issue whether a violation of federal statutory law that provides a penalty of its own may result in the suppression of evidence in a state court criminal proceeding. In Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378, 88 S.Ct. 2096, 20 L.Ed.2d 1166 (1968), the Court held that where local law enforcement authorities intercepted an individual’s telephone conversations in violation of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (Act) and then offered tapes of these conversations as evidence in a state court criminal proceeding, mandatory exclusion of evidence is the proper remedy notwithstanding the existence of penal provisions in the Act.24 Id. at 386-87, 88 S.Ct. at 2101-02.
The Court primarily relied upon the judicially-devised exclusionary rule that was made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).25 Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. at [468]*468385, 88 S.Ct. at 2100-01. The Court’s decision in Mapp insured that states could not adopt rules of evidence calculated to permit the invasion of rights protected by federal law. The Lee Court buttressed its decision by reference to the “imperative of judicial integrity.” Id. at 385-86, 88 S.Ct. at 2101 (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446-47, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) and article VI of the United States Constitution).26 More specifically, the Court noted that “it cannot be lawful to authorize [through judicial sanction] what is an illegal act.” Id. at 385-86 n. 9, 88 S.Ct. at 2101 n. 9 (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Court added that its decision was “counseled by experience” because its research “failed to uncover a single reported prosecution of a law enforcement officer for violation of [the Act] since the statute was enacted.” Id. at 386, 88 S.Ct. at 2101. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “nothing short of mandatory exclusion of the illegal evidence will compel respect for the federal law ‘in the only effective way—by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ ” Id. at 387, 88 S.Ct. at 2101 (citing Elkins, 364 U.S. at 217, 80 S.Ct. at 1444).
While we concur in the reasoning expressed in Lee, there are other independent and compelling state grounds that militate in favor of suppression in this case. The purpose of the exclusionary rule, as we see it, is primarily to deter illegal police conduct and secondarily to recognize that the courts of this State have the inherent supervisory power over criminal prosecutions to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or their agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts. State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 264, 492 P.2d 657, 663 (1971) (citing with approval the dissenting opinion in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), which states that “[t]he objective of deterring improper police conduct is only part of the larger objective of safeguarding the integrity of our adversary system”); HRS § 602-4 (1985).27 See also State v. Kirn, 70 Haw. 206, 767 P.2d 1238 (1989);28 [469]*469State v. Boynton, 58 Haw. 530, 538, 574 P.2d 1330, 1335 (1978) (distinguishing evidence obtained in a search conducted by an informant who was recruited by the police from evidence that is “independently but perhaps illegally obtained” by private citizens). Consonant with these policies, we now hold that the evidence at issue in the instant case, which was obtained in violation of the PCA and then proferred in criminal proceedings against the Defendants-Appellees, must be suppressed under the authority of this court’s supervisory powers in the administration of criminal justice in the courts of our state. Consequently, we uphold the circuit court’s order suppressing the evidence—although it was based on the erroneous conclusion that the joint civilian-military investigations reflected a “repeated[,] ... pervasive ... pattern of conduct”—because the court was right for the wrong reasons. Propios, 76 Hawai'i at 486, 879 P.2d at 1069; State v. Taniguchi, 72 Haw. 235, 240, 815 P.2d 24, 26 (1991) (“where the decision below is correct it must be affirmed by the appellate court even though the lower tribunal gave the wrong reason for its action”).
As discussed above, the actions of the military CID personnel in concert with the HPD clearly violated the PCA and were therefore illegal. Evidence obtained as a result of illegal governmental action is tainted. See Territory v. Ho Me, 26 Haw. 331, 336-37 (1922) (expressing the court’s unwillingness to hold that evidence illegally obtained “by federal officers may be retained by the city and county attorney and introduced in evidence upon trial of the defendant in a territorial court”). We hold that it is imperative in this case to suppress the evidence obtained in violation of the PCA because to ignore the violation and allow the evidence to be admitted would be to justify the illegality and condone the receipt and use of tainted evidence in the courts of this state. In this instance, where government agents have clearly violated federal law, we conclude that the principles supporting the exclusionary rule in this state mandate suppression of the evidence.
Our holding is analogous to the Elkins doctrine wherein the United States Supreme Court rejected the so-called “silver platter” doctrine, see 364 U.S. at 208 & n. 2, 80 S.Ct. at 1439 & n. 2, which previously allowed State officers who had illegally obtained evidence in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution to provide it to federal officers for use in federal prosecutions. See, e.g., Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33, 47 S.Ct. 248, 250, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927) (declining to question the federal government’s right to use evidence .improperly seized by state officers). By focusing on the legality of the evidence used in federal criminal proceedings rather than its source,29 the Elkins Court based its decision to suppress the evidence in part on the principle that courts have a supervisory responsibility to ensure that tainted evidence is not utilized in criminal prosecutions. 364 U.S. at 222-23, 80 S.Ct. at 1446-47; cf. Weeks v. United States, [470]*470232 U.S. 383, 392, 394, 34 S.Ct. 341, 344, 345, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914).
“Where as here, evidence is obtained by the military and is offered in a civilian criminal proceeding, but the actions of the military personnel in acquiring the evidence are not shown to have been of such a manner as to be consistent with a military purpose in conformance with the PCA, the evidence is not admissible.” Tyler I, 854 P.2d at 1370.30 Permitting only the statutory remedy expressly contemplated under the PCA would obviate the court’s necessary role in supervising state criminal prosecutions and would also amount to judicial sanction of federal law violations by federal military personnel. Santiago, 53 Haw. at 264, 266, 492 P.2d at 663, 664; see also Elkins, 364 U.S. at 222-23, 80 S.Ct. at 1446-47 (citing Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-71, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 569-70, 575, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting)).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s Order granting in part the Defendants-Ap-pellees’ motion to suppress evidence in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
The controlled drug purchases by military personnel in this case represent illegal intrusions into the realm of civilian law enforcement. Although the targeting of civilians by military investigators will not amount to a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) in every case, the prosecution failed to present evidence in the instant case showing that the military undertook its investigation to obtain evidence concerning either (1) illegal drug transactions involving military personnel, or (2) persons engaged in drug trafficking on a military installation. Given the absence of such proof, we hold that the evidence was properly suppressed under the exclusionary rule as applied in Hawaii. Accordingly, we affirm.