Whether the Fifth Amendment requires the district court to apply the exclusionary rule in a supervised release revocation hearing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Hearings to revoke federal supervised release allow defendants to be sentenced to a new prison term based on findings of fact by only a preponderance of the evidence, and through procedures lacking many of the protections that accompany a criminal trial. Historically, supervised release revocation hearings were considered identical to parole revocation hearings. In recent years, however, significant judicial decisions and rule amendments have recognized that defendants who risk this loss of liberty nevertheless retain important constitutional protections. This case presents two questions. First, whether the Fifth Amendment requires the district court in the appropriate case to apply the exclusionary rule in a supervised release revocation hearing to protect against forced confessions or custodial statements elicited without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Second, whether an uncorroborated confession can, by itself, prove a violation of supervised release, given that the same concerns regarding the unreliability of confessions apply to criminal prosecutions and revocation hearings. ii LIST OF ALL DIRECTLY