{"id":2475,"date":"2008-12-24T10:26:43","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T02:59:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-21T02:59:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2475","title":{"rendered":"VA: Exclusionary rule applies in probation revocation proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exclusionary rule applies in probation revocation proceedings because of defendant’s allegation that the officer acted in bad faith. Logan v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 276 Va. 533, 666 S.E.2d 346 (2008):<\/p>\n

We conclude that the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Scott<\/em><\/a> is misplaced based upon three relevant distinctions between Scott<\/em> and the present case. First, Scott<\/em> involved a parolee, rather than a probationer, 524 U.S. at 360, and parolees “have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is to imprisonment,” Samson v. California<\/em><\/a>, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006). Second, the parolee in Scott<\/em> had explicitly consented to a search of the house and his person as a condition of parole. 524 U.S. at 360. Third, a parole revocation hearing is an administrative proceeding, and “[a]pplication of the exclusionary rule would … alter the traditionally flexible, administrative nature of parole revocation proceedings.” Id<\/em>. at 364. Therefore, we reaffirm our holding in Anderson<\/em> and rule that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exclusionary rule never applies in probation revocation proceedings and in failing to consider Logan’s bad-faith argument.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant’s twice going over the white line was probable cause for a stop, and that led to defendant’s arrest for DUI. State v. Mays<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 4539, 119 Ohio St. 3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (2008).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car for cruising through the parking lot of a high school football stadium without stopping when it was apparent that the driver was not coming to attend the football game and officers expected a fight to occur. Esposito v. State, 293 Ga. App. 573, 667 S.E.2d 425 (2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2475","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}