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. \u201cThus, 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 \u2018to avoid the consequences of [their] noncompliance.\u2019 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.\u201d United States v. Spencer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158235 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2016).<\/p>\n
The evidence shows that defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary. United States v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158724 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 16, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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. \u201cThus, just like in Scott, applying the rule would inhibit the government’s ability … Continue reading