Court Opinion

ID: 9563511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:40:41.411948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:53.012592
License: Public Domain

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the holding and the reasoning of the majority’s thorough opinion, but I cannot concur in the substantial dicta devoted to attacking the exclusionary rule. This is a civil case; nothing incriminating was discovered during this illegal search, and no criminal charges ensued. There is thus nothing to exclude. The continued vitality of the exclusionary rule is a matter solely for the Supreme Court to consider. It is a far-reaching issue that would benefit from full argument, and should not be blithely dismissed absent that full presentation. Because it is not our province to comment on issues not before the court, I *400do not join that part of the majority’s opinion. See Idris v. City of Chicago, Ill., 552 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir.2009). (“federal courts do not issue advisory opinions on situations that do not affect the litigants”).