Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott

The Court stated that the government’s “use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment does not itself violate the Constitution.” The exclusionary rule’s design and intent is to deter illegal searches and seizures but does not “proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” It is only to be employed by the courts where a substantial societal benefit can be obtained. The Court was hesitant to extent the exclusionary rule matters outside of the criminal courtroom because the “[A]pplication of the exclusionary rule would both hinder the functioning of state parole systems and alter the traditionally flexible, administrative nature of parole revocation proceedings.”