950 F.3d 33
2d Cir.2020Background:
- Randy Hightower was on federal supervised release (after a 2009 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm) with a condition forbidding new crimes.
- On October 2, 2017, NYPD officers in plain clothes followed Hightower in a closed park, ordered him to remove his hand from his pocket, frisked him, and recovered a firearm; he was arrested.
- State charges (including a rape charge) were later dismissed; the government proceeded with a federal supervised-release revocation hearing in April 2018.
- At the hearing the district court found a violation by a preponderance of the evidence but considered whether the firearm should be excluded as the fruit of an allegedly unconstitutional stop.
- The district court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised-release revocation proceedings, revoked Hightower’s supervised release, and sentenced him to 1 year and 1 day; Hightower appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusionary rule applies in federal supervised-release revocation proceedings | United States: exclusionary rule should not apply; Scott and Jones support non-application | Hightower: exclusionary rule applies (citing circuit precedent like Rea); unlawfully obtained evidence should be excluded | Court: exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised-release revocation (applies Scott and Jones; Rea effectively abrogated) |
| Whether Hightower was entitled to grand jury minutes | United States: access seeks to attack underlying conviction and is not permissible | Hightower: requested minutes to challenge proceedings | Court: request denied as an improper attempt to attack underlying conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (exclusionary rule does not apply in parole revocation; deterrence insufficient to justify costs)
- United States v. Jones, 299 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (constitutional guarantees for supervised-release revocation parallel parole/probation revocation)
- United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2d Cir. 1982) (prior Second Circuit precedent holding exclusionary rule applies in probation revocations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule is prudential and limited; good-faith exceptions)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary rule inapplicable in grand jury proceedings due to institutional costs)