Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 414.0

524US2

Unit: $U90

[09-15-00 14:33:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 357 (1998)

369

Stevens, J., dissenting

that the harsh deterrent of exclusion is unwarranted, given
such other deterrents as departmental training and disci-
pline and the threat of damages actions. Moreover, al-
though in some instances parole ofﬁcers may act like police
ofﬁcers and seek to uncover evidence of illegal activity, they
(like police ofﬁcers) are undoubtedly aware that any uncon-
stitutionally seized evidence that could lead to an indictment
could be suppressed in a criminal trial.
In this case, assum-
ing that the search violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment
rights, the evidence could have been inadmissible at trial if
respondent had been criminally prosecuted.

*

*

*

We have long been averse to imposing federal require-
ments upon the parole systems of the States. A federal re-
quirement that parole boards apply the exclusionary rule,
which is itself a “ ‘grud[g]ingly taken, medicament,’ ” United
States v. Janis, supra, at 455, n. 29, would severely dis-
rupt the traditionally informal, administrative process of pa-
role revocation. The marginal deterrence of unreasonable
searches and seizures is insufﬁcient to justify such an intru-
sion. We therefore hold that parole boards are not required
by federal law to exclude evidence obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment below
is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, dissenting.
Justice Souter has explained why the deterrent function
of the exclusionary rule is implicated as much by a parole
revocation proceeding as by a conventional criminal trial.
I
I add this comment merely to
agree with that explanation.
endorse Justice Stewart’s conclusion that the “rule is consti-
tutionally required, not as a ‘right’ explicitly incorporated in
the fourth amendment’s prohibitions, but as a remedy neces-
sary to ensure that those prohibitions are observed in fact.”