Officer Weissman had been conducting surveillance on the two men from September 14 through November 30 of 1968, during which time he suspected the two of illegal bookmaking.

[1] Because Janis and Levine never filed tax returns from the income received during the period they were under Weissman's surveillance, the IRS agent made an assessment congruent to 4401 of the Internal Revenue Code.

[3] Upon being charged of violating gambling laws in Los Angeles Court, Levine and Janis appealed.

This is the government's counterclaim to recollect the taxes, which was quickly shot down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, the government makes a convincing case that the assessment was legal, even if the evidence was obtained with a faulty warrant.

As the Court puts it, the officer that obtained the evidence and the agency that analyzed it (the IRS) are two separate “sovereigns”.

Compton v. United States was cited, a case in which the Fourth Circuit Court determined that the fact that evidence is seized illegally by the police is irrelevant to a tax assessment made by the IRS.

They believe this because it “falls outside the offending officer’s zone of primary interest.” In their concluding statement, the Court said “There comes a point at which courts, consistent with their duty to administer the law, cannot continue to create barriers to law enforcement in the pursuit of a supervisory role that is properly the duty of the Executive and Legislative Branches.

We find ourselves at that point in this case.” [1] In other words, they feel that extending the exclusionary rule to civil proceedings that include separate sovereigns is unfair in the name of justice.

[8] The dissent of Justice Brennan and Marshall essentially argued that the exclusionary rule should be supreme since it is such a vital concept of the Fourth amendment.

They felt the court continued to exhibit a “business of slow strangulation of the rule.” [1] Justice Stewart's dissent argued a similar point, just in a different way.

He cited Elkins v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ditched the “silver platter doctrine”.

This doctrine was an aspect of the exclusionary rule after it was created, but before the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio, in which illegally seized evidence by a state officer could be used in a federal civil proceeding.