Source
The provisions of this Chapter 69 adopted June 2, 1972, effective June 3, 1972, 2 Pa.B. 970.
Notes of Decisions
Exclusionary Rule
The application of the exclusionary rule was necessary and proper to proscribe a search such as the one conducted by this parole agent. In this case, the need to exclude the improperly obtained evidence outweighs the injury to the parole revocation process which would be caused by the exclusion. Scott v. Board of Probation and Parole, 668 A.2d 584 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Search and Seizure
Entrance to the home prior to contacting the homeowner, and when the homeowner hesitated to disclose parolee’s bedroom but finally acquiesced after agent stated he would locate it himself, and weapons were found in the sitting room adjacent to parolee’s bedroom, under these circumstances, it is clear that the homeowner did not voluntarily, intelligently and unequivocally consent to the search conducted by the parole agent. Thus, in the absence of any statutory or regulatory framework, or an agreement explicitly setting out the rights of the parolee and the authority of the state to supervise the parolee, the only conclusion is that the actions of these parole officers violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Scott v. Board of Probation and Parole, 668 A.2d 584 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
