The fact that hair drug testing was deemed to be an improper practice at the time of an officer's disciplinary trial does not render the use of such evidence unlawful. At the time that the testing occurred it was lawful. Goldin v. Kelly, #3351, 2010 NY Slip Op 07262, 77 A.D.3d 475, 908 N.Y.S.2d 678, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 7450.
    Although verbal statements must be suppressed for not complying with the state's Bill of Rights law, a California appellate panel declines to exclude evidence of an officer's act of pointing her loaded firearm at a sergeant during her interrogation. "Although this action occurred during an interrogation which was conducted in a questionable manner, the remedy of suppression protects statements, not actions ..." Perez v. City of Los Angeles, #B199810, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1469 (2nd Dist.).
     Ohio appellate panel sets aside an arbitration award that reinstated a police officer because he was denied legal counsel during a disciplinary interview. The officer's remedy was to file a separate grievance; the arbitrator lacked authority to impose an unspecified sanction against the employer. City of Portsmouth v. FOP L-33, #05CA3032, 2006-Ohio-4387, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 4284,182 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566 (4th Dist.).
     California appellate court finds that a document seized from a police officer's home was admissible in a disciplinary hearing. The Exclusionary Rule does not apply to administrative trials. Brazier v. City of Rialto, #E034910, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 11403 (2004). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court refuses to exclude surveillance evidence because the Chicago Municipal Code (§2-152-340) requires the city's inspector general to complete investigations within six months. "The length of the investigation resulted in a more thorough investigation, which arguably protected plaintiff from being discharged without cause. These facts support a finding for admission of the evidence." Fedanzo v. City of Chicago, #1-01-0582, 2002 Ill. App. Lexis 413 (Ill. App. 2002). [N/R]
     Arbitrator holds that (1) the "Exclusionary Rule" does not apply in arbitration proceedings, and that (2) management has no duty to conduct a thorough investigation of an employee's misconduct. The sole issue is the guilt or innocence of the accused employee. City of Evansville and Amalgamated Transit Union L-878, FMCS Case #010135/07825-6, 116 LA (BNA) 1184 (Cohen, 2001). [2002 FP Jul]
     Nebraska joins with those states that admits unlawfully seized evidence in disciplinary hearings. Omaha v. Savard-Henson, #99645, 9 Neb. App. 561, 615 N.W.2d 497, 2000 Neb. App. Lexis 243. [2000 FP 164]
     Colorado appellate court refuses to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence in a corrections disciplinary hearing; court creates a security-safety exception. Ahart v. Dept. of Corr., 943 P.2d 7, 1996 Colo.App. Lexis 248, 11 IER Cases (BNA) 1858. [1996 FP 164-5]
     N.Y. appellate court upholds admissibility of improperly obtained evidence in a police disciplinary trial. Charles Q. v. Constantine, 612 N.Y.S.2d 687 (A.D. 1994); affirmed at 85 N.Y.2d 571, 626 N.Y.S.2d 992. [1995 FP 69]
     NY high court allows evidence, illegally seized by another agency, to be used in the disciplinary trial of an accused trooper. Boyd v. Constantine, 81 N.Y.2d 189, 613 N.E.2d 511 (1993). [1994 FP 68-9]
     Exclusionary rule applies to an unconstitutional random drug analysis in employment termination proceedings. Pike v. Gallagher, 829 F.Supp. 1254 at 1263-5 (D.N.M. 1993). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court admits illegally seized drugs and weapons in a police disciplinary hearing. Grames v. Ill. State Police, 254 Ill.App.3d 191, 625 N.E.2d 945 (Ill.App. 1993).[1994 FP 69]
     Courts differ as to whether exclusionary rule should apply to non-criminal disciplinary proceedings: Arizona: Rinderknecht v. Maricopa Co., 520 P.2d 332 (Ariz. App. 1974); cert. vac. 526 P.2d 713 (Ariz. 1974); California: Governing Bd. of Mtn. View Sch. Dist. v. Metcalf, 36 Cal.App.3d 546, 111 Cal.Rptr. 724 (1974); Massachusetts: Bd. of Selectmen of Framingham v. Munic. Ct. of City of Boston, 369 N.E.2d 1145 (Mass. 1977); New Jersey: City of Brunswick v. Speights, 157 N.J. Super. 9, 384 A.2d 225 (1978); New York: Gaglia v. Starr, 59 A.D.2d 839, 398 N.Y.S.2d 898 (1977).
     Federal court refuses to extend "exclusionary rule" to disciplinary hearings. Burka v. NYCTA, 747 F.Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
     California appellate court allows "illegally" seized evidence to be used in disciplinary trials. Finkelstein v. State Personnel Bd., 267 Cal.Rptr. 133 (App. 1990).
     Illegally seized evidence is admissible in disciplinary hearings in Maryland, unless obtained in bad faith. Sheetz v. City of Baltimore, 315 Md. 208, 533 A.2d 1281 (Md. 1989).
     Arkansas allows illegally seized evidence to be used in a firefighter's termination hearing. Miller v. City of Little Rock, 23 Ark.App. 91, 743 S.W.2d 9 (1988). {N/R}
     Illegally seized evidence not admissible in disciplinary proceedings against firefighter, under Oklahoma Constitution. Turner v. City of Lawton, 1986 OK 51, 733 P.2d 375, 1986 Okla. Lexis 150 (7/22/86).
     New York's high court upholds use of illegal wiretap conversation in disciplinary hearing. Mancini v. Codd, 46 N.Y.2d 12, 385 N.E.2d 541 (1978).
     Massachusetts appellate court rules that evidence from an illegal search is not admissible in a disciplinary hearing. Board of Selectmen of Framingham v. Munic. Court of the City of Boston, 369 N.E.2d 1145 (Mass. 1977). [1978-9 FP 8-9].
     Exclusionary rule does not extend to grand jury proceedings. U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974). {N/R}
     See also: Disciplinary Hearings; Disciplinary Interrogations; Disciplinary Investigations (numerous cases).