Abstract
This article argues that the exclusionary rule should apply to parole revocation hearings. I argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott is contrary to the purposes of the exclusionary rule and eliminates any effective deterrent to parole and police officers searching parolees, especially when the officers already know that the individual they are searching is on parole. I highlight how the role of parole officers has evolved from their original role of assisting parolees through rehabilitation, to performing primarily a law enforcement function of supervision. Thus, because the role of a parole officer is essentially one of a law enforcement official, I argue a similar need exists to deter their misconduct.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.