there is “no underlying difference between probation revocation hearings and supervised release revocation hearings sufficient to support application of the exclusionary rule in one proceeding but not the other”
How later courts described this case
- there is “no underlying difference between probation revocation hearings and supervised release revocation hearings sufficient to support application of the exclusionary rule in one proceeding but not the other”
- Title VI claims should be governed by the same statute of limitations that applies to Sec. 1983 claims
- Title VI claims should be governed by the same statute of limitations that applies to § 1983 claims
- state statutes of limitations are applicable to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 2000d
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.