THE ANALYSIS IS UNDERTAKEN AS A RESPONSE TO THE RECENT NINTH CIRCUIT DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES V WINSETT (1975) AND UNITED STATES V VANDEMARKE (1975). THE NOTE EXPLORES THE VAST DISCRETINARY DOMAIN OF PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATION, EXPOSING A RELIANCE ON DETERRENT IMPACT AS THE SOLE JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCLUDING EVIDENCE. IT FURTHER SUGGESTS THAT APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN PROBATION AND PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS WOULD LEND RATIONALITY AND CONSISTENCY TO CORRECTIONAL DECISION MAKING.