In Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott (1998) 524 U.S. 357, the court held that it was unnecessary to apply the exclusionary rule to state parole revocation hearings. The court explained that "even when the officer performing the search is a parole officer, the deterrence benefits of the exclusionary rule remain limited." (Id. at p. 368, 118 S. Ct. at p. 2022.) The court observed that unlike police, parole officers "are not 'engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,'; instead, their primary concern is whether their parolees should remain free on parole. Thus, their relationship with parolees is more supervisory than adversarial." (Ibid.) Given the parole officer's role, the court reasoned that it is "'unfair to assume that the parole officer bears hostility against the parolee that destroys his neutrality; realistically the failure of the parolee is in a sense a failure for his supervising officer.'" (Ibid.)