The exclusionary rule does not apply to all administrative hearings. It requires the suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence.[i] The reach of the exclusionary rule does not extend to administrative proceedings where the purpose of detering police misconduct is not served. Generally, if the evidence is relevant to aid in enforcing administrative rules or responding to inappropriate employee conduct, the exclusionary rule does not apply to administrative proceedings. In such circumstances, the benefits of exclusion are outweighed by its cost.[ii] The exclusionary rule has been applied in quasi-criminal administrative proceedings, such as parole-revocation hearings.
Pursuant to 18 USCS § 2515, whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, if disclosure of the communication would violate the wiretapping laws.
[i] Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal. 4th 841 (Cal. 1993)
[ii] City of Omaha v. Savard-Henson, 9 Neb. App. 561 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000)