Counsel debate whether exclusionary rule applies when private party uses officer to gather civil‑case evidence

Appellants and respondent disputed the applicability of the exclusionary rule in a civil case where an off‑duty, uniformed officer gathered evidence at a private party’s direction. Nigel Malden argued the facts here are ‘‘the exact opposite’’ of the McDaniel decision cited by the respondent because Pippkorn allegedly caused the constitutional violation and used the fruits of it offensively in civil litigation.

Trabulsi acknowledged McDaniel’s relevance to the court’s reasoning and said the Washington law the counsel cited requires a tight relationship between the government and the private actor for §1983/state‑action liability; he urged the panel that no such tight relationship was shown.