Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 405

524US2

Unit: $U90

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

360

PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION
AND PAROLE v. SCOTT
Opinion of the Court

term of 10 to 20 years, beginning on March 31, 1983. On
September 1, 1993, just months after completing the mini-
mum sentence, respondent was released on parole. One of
the conditions of respondent’s parole was that he would re-
frain from “owning or possessing any ﬁrearms or other weap-
ons.” App. 5a. The parole agreement, which respondent
signed, further provided:

“I expressly consent to the search of my person, prop-
erty and residence, without a warrant by agents of the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Any
items, in [sic] the possession of which constitutes a vio-
lation of parole/reparole shall be subject to seizure, and
may be used as evidence in the parole revocation proc-
ess.”

Id., at 7a.

About ﬁve months later, after obtaining an arrest warrant
based on evidence that respondent had violated several con-
ditions of his parole by possessing ﬁrearms, consuming alco-
hol, and assaulting a co-worker, three parole ofﬁcers arrested
respondent at a local diner. Before being transferred to a
correctional facility, respondent gave the ofﬁcers the keys
to his residence. The ofﬁcers entered the home, which was
owned by his mother, but did not perform a search for parole
violations until respondent’s mother arrived. The ofﬁcers
neither requested nor obtained consent to perform the
search, but respondent’s mother did direct them to his bed-
room. After ﬁnding no relevant evidence there, the ofﬁcers
searched an adjacent sitting room in which they found ﬁve
ﬁrearms, a compound bow, and three arrows.

At his parole violation hearing, respondent objected to the
introduction of the evidence obtained during the search of
his home on the ground that the search was unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment. The hearing examiner, how-
ever, rejected the challenge and admitted the evidence. As
a result, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
found sufﬁcient evidence in the record to support the weap-