 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole v. Scott
524 U.S. 357, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141
L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)
Author:- B. Brown
Facts: As a condition of Scott’s parole, he was to refrain from owing or possessing weapons. Based on evidence that he violated this, and other conditions of his parole, officers entered his home, searched and found firearms. At his parole violation hearing, Scott objected to the introduction of this evidence on grounds that search was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. Scott’s challenge to the evidence was rejected. Thus Scott’s parole was violated and he was recommitted.
Procedural History: The Commonwealth Court of Penn. reversed, and the Penn. Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. The U.S Supreme Court granted Certiorari.
Plaintiff’s Argument: The consent analysis justifies the warrantless search of Scott’s residence. The case can and should be decided based on the consent exception.
Defendant’s Argument: The search of Scott’s residence was unconstitutional and unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. It was conducted without the owner’s consent and was not authorized by any state statutory or regulatory framework ensuring the reasonableness of such searches by parole officers.
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to parole revocation proceedings. Answer. No or Whether a search of a parolee’s residence must be reasonable to be valid under the 4th Amendment, where the parolee has consented to searches as a condition of his parole? Answer: No
Holding: The federal exclusionary rule does not bar introduction at parole revocation hearing of evidence seized in violation of parolee’s 4th Amendment rights. The State’s use of such evidence does not itself violate the Constitution.
(A). Rule: State parole boards are not required by federal law to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a parolee’s rights under the 4th Amendment.
(B). Rationale: The exclusionary rule was created as a means of deterring illegal searches and seizures. The rule does not prohibit the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. It is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its social costs.