There was a good premise for a motion to suppress the probation search here from a 14 year old consenting to entry, but defendant’s benefit from the plea agreement shows that there was no prejudice. State v. Wallace, 2017 Del. LEXIS 404 (Sept. 27, 2017).
On plain error review, the district court did not err in finding that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to revocation of supervised release. “Other Circuits that have addressed this issue have explicitly concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised-release proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 859 (5th Cir. 1992).” United States v. Diallo, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2017).*