E.D.N.Y.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t [hardly ever] apply to violations of supervised release

The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of supervised release, but it might be possible if the deterrence rationale could still apply sometimes, just not here. “Thus, just like in Scott, applying the rule would inhibit the government’s ability to ensure compliance with the conditions of supervised release and permit individuals ‘to avoid the consequences of [their] noncompliance.’ Id. at 365. These high costs are not outweighed by the marginal deterrence benefits of applying the exclusionary rule particularly where, as here, the police officers were not aware of Defendant’s supervised release status and were investigating a new state law violation. Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to these proceedings.” United States v. Spencer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158235 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2016).

The evidence shows that defendant’s consent was voluntary. United States v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158724 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 16, 2016).*