Abrogating the Exclusionary Rule Outside of the Criminal Trial Context? Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott: One Step Closer to a Per Se Rule in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

Authors

Richard F. Dzubin, University of Richmond

Abstract

As citizens of the United States, most of us would abhor warrantless police intrusion into our homes. The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. When unaccompanied by a valid search warrant, a search of a residence is presumptively unreasonable. Thus, the law proscribes overly-aggressive investigatory methods that trammel the rights of American citizens. What happens, however, when the protected right belongs to a paroled felon suspected of violating the conditions of his parole? In Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, the United States Supreme Court refused to extend to parolees the remedies which are offered to other citizens when illegal police conduct infringes upon their Fourth Amendment guarantees.

Recommended Citation

Richard F. Dzubin, Abrogating the Exclusionary Rule Outside of the Criminal Trial Context? Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott: One Step Closer to a Per Se Rule in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 631 (1999).
Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss2/15