Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the exclusionary rule applies to searches conducted in foreign countries by foreign officials. United States v. Staino, 690 F. Supp. 406, 408-09 (E.D.Pa. 1988); see United States v. Callaway, 446 F.2d 753, 755 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied sub nom. De Vyver v. United States, 404 U.S. 1021, 92 S.Ct. 694, 30 L.Ed.2d 670 (1972). Two exceptions to this rule have developed: (1) where the involvement of the United States officials is so extensive in the search that the United States government and the foreign government are said to be involved in a "joint venture"; and, (2) where the action taken by the foreign officials shocks the judicial conscience.Staino, 690 F. Supp. at 409 n. 8; Callaway, 446 F.2d at 755; United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir. 1987).

Brief for Staino at 10-14. In United States v. Staino, 690 F. Supp. 406 (E.D.Pa. 1988), wherein Staino was convicted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 952, 960, and 963 of conspiring to import and importing PCP, Staino raised and lost the same argument with respect to the same search. Staino was affirmed by this court in an unpublished opinion.

In Peterson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule created in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), to reasonable reliance on the representations of foreign officials regarding the interpretation of foreign law. United States v. Staino, 690 F. Supp. 406, 410 (E.D.Pa. 1988), aff'd, 888 F.2d 1383 (3rd Cir. 1989). The court in Peterson reasoned at 492: