In Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008), the Supreme Court of Florida considered, among other things, whether the exclusionary rule was a remedy for a violation of Florida's strip search statute. 978 So. 2d at 129. The Court noted that "the plain language of the statute does not expressly provide for exclusion of evidence as a remedy for a violation of the statute." Id. at 130. However, the Court also noted that the statute made explicit reference to civil and injunctive remedies, and "since the Legislature chose to reference these remedies in the statute, we must assume that the Legislature intended to exclude all other remedies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for this Court to read a judicially created remedy into the statute." Id. at 130 n.14. In reaching this conclusion, this Court noted that it has held that the exclusionary rule applies to certain statutes that are silent as to a remedy for their violation. Id. (citing State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2002) (exclusionary rule applies to willful violation of statute governing confidentiality of patient medical records); Benefield, 160 So. 2d 706). The Court then noted, without deciding, that Hudson may impact this Court's decision in Benefield. See id.