Parole Officers and the Exclusionary Rule: Is There Any Deterrent Left?

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.