Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott
141 L. Ed. 2d 344, 524 U.S. 357, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4037 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, which bars the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial, does not apply to parole revocation proceedings.
Facts:
- Keith M. Scott was released on parole after serving the minimum sentence for a third-degree murder conviction.
- As a condition of his parole, Scott signed an agreement consenting to warrantless searches of his person, property, and residence by parole agents.
- The agreement stipulated that any items possessed in violation of parole could be seized and used as evidence in the parole revocation process.
- Approximately five months after his release, parole officers arrested Scott at a diner for suspected parole violations.
- After the arrest, parole officers went to the home Scott shared with his mother and conducted a search without a warrant or consent from the mother.
- During the search, officers found five firearms, a compound bow, and three arrows in a sitting room adjacent to Scott's bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- At his parole revocation hearing, Keith Scott objected to the admission of the seized weapons, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The hearing examiner admitted the evidence, and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole recommitted Scott to serve 36 months' backtime.
- Scott appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the Board's decision, holding that the exclusionary rule applied.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the state's highest court), which affirmed the lower court's ruling.
- The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, apply to state parole revocation hearings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, the federal exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation hearings. The rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter illegal searches, not a personal constitutional right, and its application is appropriate only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs. In the context of parole revocation, the costs of excluding reliable evidence are high, as it hinders the State's overwhelming interest in supervising parolees and protecting the public. Application of the rule would also disrupt the traditionally flexible, administrative, and non-adversarial nature of parole hearings. The deterrence benefits are minimal, as the potential exclusion of evidence from criminal trials already provides significant deterrence against unconstitutional searches by police and parole officers.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes, the exclusionary rule should apply to parole revocation proceedings. The majority's conclusion is based on a mistaken understanding of the parole system, as a revocation hearing often serves as a substitute for a criminal trial, making it the only forum where the state will use the evidence. Therefore, the deterrent function of the exclusionary rule is just as implicated in a revocation proceeding as it is in a conventional trial. Police and parole officers often know an individual's parole status and, without the rule, have an incentive to conduct illegal searches to secure re-incarceration through revocation, knowing the evidence would be inadmissible in a new criminal prosecution. The supposed 'marginal' deterrence is not marginal at all; it is often the only deterrence.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the exclusionary rule should apply. This dissent agrees with Justice Souter's reasoning and adds that the exclusionary rule is a constitutionally required remedy necessary to ensure the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions are actually observed, not merely a prudential, judicially created deterrent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, cementing its inapplicability to non-criminal proceedings like parole hearings. The ruling prioritizes the state's administrative and supervisory interests in managing parolees over the potential deterrent effect of excluding illegally obtained evidence. It creates a practical consequence where law enforcement can use evidence from a potentially unconstitutional search to re-incarcerate a parolee, even if that same evidence would be suppressed in a new criminal trial. This strengthens the state's hand in parole revocation while reducing Fourth Amendment protections for individuals on parole.
