Since its inception, the exclusionary rule has been the subject of continuing debate. Proponents argue it is the only effective means of protecting individual rights from police misconduct, while critics oppose the exclusion from trial of clearly probative evidence. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have limited the scope of the exclusionary rule and have created exceptions. Decisions by lower courts indicate a clear trend holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation and parole revocation hearings. These decisions are consistent with the interpretation of the exclusionary rule by the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by law enforcement personnel acting in good faith or to proceedings other than the criminal trial. Since probation and parole revocation hearings occur after a finding of guilt, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that offenders are entitled to diminished constitutional rights and fewer due process safeguards. This logically extends to the exclusionary rule's applicability to probation and parole revocation hearings. Applying the exclusionary rule only to cases where there is bad faith on the part of police officers is in keeping with the avowed purpose of the rule to control police misconduct. Data on the status of the exclusionary rule in probation and parole revocation hearings in State and Federal courts are provided. 45 notes and 2 table