Ibid. In United States v. Roberson, for example, the Fifth Circuit found reasonable suspicion to justify a stop and frisk of a suspect in part because the suspect was wearing a bandana over his face. 496 F. App'x 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2012). The defendant in Roberson argued that his attire "was not a legitimate basis for reasonable suspicion" because there were "reasons other than robbery that he might have been wearing a bandana, namely that it was cold."
These were reasonable judgments as the requested investigation was not supported by the record and the even if it had been, it would not have assisted Sanford by excluding the evidence from the hearing. See United States v. Roberson, 496 F. App'x 390, 395 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation hearings absent police harassment); see generally Mot. to Vacate [79] (failing to allege police harassment). As for Sanford's allegation that Weber failed to adequately prepare, Weber states that he was well prepared for the hearing and would have requested an extension had this not been the case.
It is well-settled that the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised-release revocation proceedings. United States v. Roberson, 496 F. App'x 390, 395 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Montez, 952 F.2d at 857). Moreover, Defendant's request for suppression relates to his pending state charges—not federal charges.