No Self-Incrimination Remedy in Supervised Release Proceedings

US v. Riley: Riley was on supervised release for federal drug charges when he was charged in state court for possession of a controlled substance. After a petition to revoke was filed and Riley was arrested, his probation officer interrogated him without any Miranda warnings. Riley admitted to using methamphetamine regularly as well as distributing it. Riley objected to the use of those statements during his revocation proceeding, but the district court rejected that argument, holding that the exclusionary rules does not apply in revocation proceedings. Riley’s supervised release was revoked and he was returned to prison for 20 months.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation, although on a different ground than the district court. Questions of the applicability of the exclusionary rule, the court ruled, “puts the cart before the horse” and the court had to first determining “whether there has been a constitutional violation.” The court concluded there had not been a violation, because the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies only to “criminal” proceedings and revocation proceedings aren’t criminal in nature. The court rejected Riley’s argument that, in spite of the nature of the revocation proceedings, what mattered is that he was in custody when questioned. That was “not relevant,” however, “because his statements were not used against him in a criminal proceeding.” The court also noted that while the Fifth Amendment privilege can be asserted in a non-criminal proceeding, it cannot be violated in one.