interest” in ensuring that a parolee complies with those requirements and is returned to prison if he fails to do so. [Cit.] The exclusion of evidence establishing a parole violation, however, hampers the State’s ability to ensure compliance with these conditions by permitting the parolee to avoid the consequences of his noncompliance. The costs of allowing a parolee to avoid the consequences of his violation are compounded by the fact that parolees (particularly those who have already committed parole violations) are more likely to commit future criminal offenses than are average citizens. [Cit.] Indeed, this is the very premise behind the system of close parole supervision. [Cit.] Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 365 (II) (118 SC 2014, 141 LE2d 344) (1998) (<HOLDING>). Strict application of the hearsay rule, as
holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order holding that the state courts decision to uphold the parole boards denial of parole was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence holding that parole boards do not have to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury