Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Keith M. Scott (524 U.S. 357)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 22, 1998 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 524 U.S. 357 · 118 S. Ct. 2014
- Decided
- June 22, 1998
- Term
- October Term 1997
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease presents the question whether the exclusionary-rule, which generally prohibits the introduction at criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, applies in parole revocation hearings. We hold that it does not. I Respondent Keith M. Scott pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of third-degree murder and was sentenced to a prison term of 10 to 20 years, beginning on March 31, 1983. On September 1, 1993, just months after completing the minimum sentence, respondent was released on parole. One of the conditions of respondent’s parole was that he would refrain from “owning or possessing any firearms or other weapons.” App. 5a. The parole agreement, which respondent signed, further provided: “I expressly consent to the search of my person, property 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 violation of parole/reparole shall be subject to seizure, and may be used as evidence in the parole revocation process.” Id., at 7a. About five months later, after obtaining an arrest warrant based on evidence that respondent had'violated several conditions of his parole by possessing firearms, consuming alcohol, and assaulting a co-worker, three parole officers arrested respondent at a…
Excerpt of a 20,857-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.