Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 406

524US2

Unit: $U90

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

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

361

Opinion of the Court

ons and alcohol charges and recommitted respondent to
serve 36 months’ backtime.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed and
remanded, holding, inter alia, that the hearing examiner had
erred in admitting the evidence obtained during the search
of respondent’s residence.1 The court ruled that the search
violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights because it
was conducted without the owner’s consent and was not
authorized by any state statutory or regulatory framework
ensuring the reasonableness of searches by parole ofﬁcers.
668 A. 2d 590, 596 (1995). The court further held that the
exclusionary rule should apply because, in the circumstances
of respondent’s case, the deterrence beneﬁts of the rule out-
weighed its costs.

Id., at 600.2

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court afﬁrmed.

548 Pa. 418,
698 A. 2d 32 (1997). The court stated that respondent’s
Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and
seizures was “unaffected” by his signing of the parole agree-
ment giving parole ofﬁcers permission to conduct warrant-
less searches.
It then held
Id., at 427, 698 A. 2d, at 36.
that the search in question was unreasonable because it was
supported only by “mere speculation” rather than a “reason-
able suspicion” of a parole violation.
Ibid. Carving out an
exception to its per se bar against application of the exclu-
sionary rule in parole revocation hearings, see Common-
wealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102, 120, 305 A. 2d 701, 710 (1973),
the court further ruled that the federal exclusionary rule
applied to this case because the ofﬁcers who conducted the

1 The court also held that the Board of Probation and Parole erred by
admitting hearsay evidence regarding alcohol consumption and a separate
incident of weapons possession.

2 While this case was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the
Commonwealth Court ﬁled an en banc opinion in another case that over-
ruled its decision in respondent’s case and held that the exclusionary rule
does not apply in parole revocation hearings. Kyte v. Pennsylvania Bd.
of Probation and Parole, 680 A. 2d 14, 18, n. 8 (1996).