Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, held that the federal exclusionary rule does not apply in parole revocation hearings, even when searching officers know the subject is a parolee. The marginal deterrence would not outweigh the loss of reliable evidence and disruption of informal parole proceedings. The Court reversed and remanded without deciding whether the search was constitutional. Justice Stevens dissented separately, agreeing with Justice Souter's deterrence analysis and emphasizing that exclusion is a constitutionally required remedy. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, dissented because revocation frequently substitutes for criminal prosecution, making exclusion at revocation hearings an essential deterrent; he would affirm.