This Comment examines the joint venture exception in the international silver platter doctrine in the context of the use of wiretaps in federal narcotics cases. Under the international silver platter doctrine, evidence obtained through searches (like wiretaps) by foreign law enforcement on foreign soil and under foreign law is admissible in U.S. courts. The joint venture exception qualifies the international silver platter doctrine: if participation by U.S. law enforcement in a wiretap by foreign law enforcement on foreign soil constitutes a joint venture, then evidence obtained from the search is admissible only if the wiretap was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Federal appellate courts lack uniform guidance on which factors to evaluate and weigh in considering whether a joint venture between U.S. and foreign law enforcement existed. This leads to rare findings of joint ventures. If courts do not find that a joint venture existed, courts admit evidence obtained from joint ventures regardless of whether the wiretap complied with foreign law, which provides defendants with no constitutional protections. Based on an empirical and qualitative analysis, this Comment proposes adopting a uniform balancing test for the joint venture exception that considers: (1) who controlled the wiretap, (2) whether U.S. law enforcement provided substantial resources to foreign law enforcement, and (3) how U.S. and foreign law enforcement describe their relationship. This proposal would lead to increased findings of joint ventures in cases involving cooperation in conducting wiretaps between U.S. and foreign law enforcement abroad. Specifically, the proposal would require that more wiretaps comply with the law of the country where they were intercepted. Because courts would find joint ventures more often with my proposed balancing test, my proposal could also increase judicial legitimacy, since courts would less often be deciding cases based on illegally obtained evidence from abroad.

本评论在联邦毒品案件中使用窃听的背景下审查了国际银盘原则中的合资例外。根据国际银盘原则，外国执法部门根据外国法律在外国领土上通过搜查（如窃听）获得的证据在美国法院是可以接受的。合资企业例外符合国际银盘学说：如果美国执法部门参与外国执法部门在外国领土上的窃听构成合资企业，那么只有在窃听根据第四修正案是合理的情况下，从搜查中获得的证据才可采纳. 联邦上诉法院在考虑是否存在美国和外国执法部门之间的合资企业时，对于评估和权衡哪些因素缺乏统一的指导。这导致了合资企业的罕见发现。如果法院认定不存在合资企业，则无论窃听是否符合外国法律，法院都会采纳从合资企业获得的证据，这样被告就得不到宪法保护。基于实证和定性分析，本评论建议对合资企业例外情况采用统一的平衡测试，考虑：(1) 谁控制了窃听，(2) 美国执法部门是否向外国执法部门提供了大量资源，以及 (3 ) 美国和外国执法部门如何描述他们的关系。该提案将导致在涉及美国和外国执法部门之间合作进行窃听的案件中增加合资企业的调查结果。具体来说，该提案将要求更多的窃听符合窃听所在国的法律。因为法院会通过我提议的平衡测试更频繁地发现合资企业，我的提议也可以增加司法合法性，因为法院很少会根据从国外非法获得的证据来裁决案件。