Valdez v. Department of Revenue

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdez v. Department of Revenue

622 So. 2d 62, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7572, 1993 WL 264735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 19, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1770

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 62 (Valdez v. Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valdez v. Department of Revenue, 622 So. 2d 62, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7572, 1993 WL 264735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are called to evaluate the final order of the Department of Revenue sustaining a civil tax assessment against Jesus Valdez under the provisions of section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988), on the unlawful transportation of approximately 90 kilograms of cocaine. The issue raised is whether the Department erred in concluding that the exclusionary rule did not apply in the instant administrative proceedings challenging the tax assessment. Although the exclusionary rule is generally inapplicable to such collateral civil proceedings, United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976); Tirado v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), a narrow exception to this rule may be found under circumstances involving “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained” [footnote omitted]. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 3489, 82 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1984); see also Adamson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 745 F.2d 541 (9th Cir.1984). However, the facts as referenced in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir.1991), and in the Department’s final order do not transgress the narrow exception articulated in either Lopez-Mendoza or Adamson.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We are called to evaluate the final order of the Department of Revenue sustaining a civil tax assessment against Jesus Valdez under the provisions of section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988), on the unlawful transportation of approximately 90 kilograms of cocaine. The issue raised is whether the Department erred in concluding that the exclusionary rule did not apply in the instant administrative proceedings challenging the tax assessment. Although the exclusionary rule is generally inapplicable to such collateral civil proceedings, United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976); Tirado v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 689 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1982), a narrow exception to this rule may be found under circumstances involving “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence obtained” [footnote omitted]. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 3489, 82 L.Ed.2d 778, 793 (1984); see also Adamson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 745 F.2d 541 (9th Cir.1984). However, the facts as referenced in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir.1991), and in the Department’s final order do not transgress the narrow exception articulated in either Lopez-Mendoza or Adamson.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 62, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7572, 1993 WL 264735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdez-v-department-of-revenue-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack