The hearing on a violation of probation may include consideration of evidence that has been suppressed after a hearing under Penal Code section 1538.5 unless the police conduct shocks the conscience. Lazlo was on probation with a condition that she be law-abiding. During a parole search of a motel room that was directed at another individual, she was found with a forged driver’s licence in her purse. The evidence was suppressed at a Penal Code section 1538.5 hearing because the prosecution failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that a search of her purse was legal. At a subsequent probation violation hearing, however, the trial court did not suppress the evidence and found that Lazlo violated her probation by possessing a forged driver’s license. Affirmed. Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (d) provides that if a motion to suppress evidence is granted pursuant to the proceedings authorized by the section, the property or evidence shall not be admissible against the movant at any trial or other hearing. However, this subdivision was abrogated in 1982 by Proposition 8, which requires exclusion only based on federal constitutional authority. The U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the application of the exclusionary rule to probation revocation hearings, but has refused to extend it to parole revocation proceedings. Lower federal courts and California courts have held that the exclusionary rule only applies at a probation revocation hearing if the police conduct shocks the conscience. Here, Lazlo conceded that the police conduct in her case did not shock the conscience. The evidence was properly admitted at the probation revocation hearing, despite having previously been suppressed.