United States v. Derrick Phillips, 914 F.3d 557

Derrick Phillips was on federal supervised release (from a 2003 cocaine-distribution conviction) when police stopped his car on Oct. 4, 2017; a dog alerted and officers found ~196 grams of heroin.
Phillips was arrested for possession with intent to distribute; his probation officer filed a petition to revoke supervised release for committing a new crime.
In the district court Phillips moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the traffic stop lacked legal basis and the search was unconstitutional.
The district court did not resolve the stop’s legality; it held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to supervised-release-revocation hearings, relying on Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, and revoked Phillips’s release, imposing 36 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal Phillips challenged only the district court’s exclusionary-rule ruling. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Scott and related precedent and noting consensus among other circuits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the exclusionary rule applies to supervised-release revocation hearings	Exclusionary rule should apply; evidence from unconstitutional stop must be suppressed	Scott and related precedents bar exclusion at revocation hearings; exclusionary rule not appropriate outside criminal trials	Exclusionary rule inapplicable; revocation and sentence affirmed
Whether supervised-release hearings are sufficiently adversarial to warrant the rule	Supervised-release hearings are more trial-like (right to counsel, formal objections) so rule should apply	Hearings remain part of sentencing/revocation process and are closer to parole revocation than to criminal trials	Court rejects plaintiff’s distinction; treats hearings as non-criminal-trial proceedings for these purposes
Whether refusing exclusion reduces deterrence of unlawful police conduct	Revocation in lieu of prosecution can leave unlawful searches unchallenged, so exclusion provides needed deterrence	Criminal-trial exclusion already provides significant deterrence; same logic as Scott applies	Court accepts government’s deterrence argument; no added deterrence shown
Whether applying exclusion would conflict with precedent and other circuits	Seeks preservation for Supreme Court review	Applying exclusion would undermine Seventh Circuit precedent and create circuit split reversal of uniform rule	Court declines to disturb circuit consensus; notes majority of circuits hold exclusion inapplicable

Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (exclusionary rule not applied to parole-revocation hearings)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (costs of exclusionary rule and good-faith exception rationale)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (exclusionary rule inapplicable to deportation proceedings)
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (exclusionary rule inapplicable to civil tax proceedings)
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (postrevocation penalties relate to the original offense)
United States v. Brimah, 214 F.3d 854 (7th Cir.: exclusionary rule does not apply at sentencing)
United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir.: revocation focuses on modification of original sentence)
United States v. Hebert, 201 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.: exclusionary rule inapplicable to supervised release)
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.: exclusionary rule inapplicable to supervised release)
United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637 (8th Cir.: exclusionary rule inapplicable absent police harassment)
United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854 (5th Cir.: exclusionary rule inapplicable to supervised release)