# Amicus Curiae Brief — Morrissey v. Brewer > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0050%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 408 U.S. 471 ## Text PRILE CORT. 0 St | selganslbiieonnet fig 29 ase . ——— ey Gy re 7 * _—— . _ IN ‘THE “Supreme Court of the Huited States Uc TOBER Term, 1971 -No. 71'5103 JOHN J. Morkrissey- and G. Dos ALD Boonen; Pe titioners, —V.— Lou V. Brewer, Warden, Respondent. | | BRIEF OF THE MERIC. AN CIV IL LIBERTIES UNION. AMICUS CURIAE Metvin L. Were MieHELE HE RMANN- Day Herman Sc HWARTZ Rovert PLOTKIN RicHaRb SINGER JOEL Gora | ~Ame ‘rican Civil L iberties \Union 156 Fifth Avenue - New York, New York 10010: Attorneys for Amicus Curiae — td ‘ e . ° ‘ =~ ; IN D EX. - ee ae ad ~, : PAGE Interest Of Amicits: ctl cece cecceeeleseseeesetteteseeseeeeees - Th® Question Presented 22..21.00.02022002.2----- en aces * I. Introduction ...... beenessteaesne pease ge ts Aechuvctaxeoadetieceaetes eee 2 If. The seriousness of the loss of a man’s freedom, ~. fyndamental coneepts of fairness, and basic penological goals-of re habilitation all require the application of | due process before the revo- cation of probation and Parole woe eee .. . 4 ltl. The traditional justifications for denying due _ process at the revocation of probation or parole , _-are neither logically nor legally sound .00...... 10 A. The Conditional Liberty Enjoyed by a Per- son on Parole or Probation Is Not a Matter. of “Grace” Which Can Be Revoked at the- Whim of the State 2202... ees es tee LO B. Due Process Guarantees Apply to the Rey o- -ation: of Probation and Parole: Even if the - Probationer or Parolee Is Considered in Some Sense: Still to Be “in ‘Custody Al- » though ‘Released: From Prison 2.000000. 13 - IV. Due process requires a hearing pe revoca- tion ef probation or’ parole os. 17 A. The Grounds for Finding a, V iolation of the ‘ : Conditions 6f Probation or Parole Seestasstecceese | LE B. The Requisites of a Heating oe, Co. ‘ , % - . i Sitee sys Wriglit, v. ‘Me Mann, 321 F. Supp. 12 i (8. D.N, x: iene . / U “énstitutional Py! ov isions: . . “o nited” ‘States “Constitution 7 “e% i er oe | ; . -+First Amendment .1 wd. beeen dite alseevg need ee secon : 16 ‘ veges Bf ‘i Sixth Amendment Ismet inne es ween 20 oe / an “Fourteenth Améndment 1.0 cel ; - Other Authorities: Faye EE et a UE ad HT ee) ABA: “Proje et on. ‘Minimum Standards of Criminal : ’ ‘ Justice, Standards Re lating. to Probation (Approved ' . Draft. EGO), eacpinetcnseesvtoeanganetesngenrestegtnt isieatians eh vil ‘ , e _A.B.A. Project « on Minin , Standards: of Criminal PAGE | - Justice, Staiiel ards Relating, to Pro id? Wy Detouse. "Service 8 (Approved Draft J868)- Ge diaweumprmaned ‘sieeeeeseses e. : - ‘ Aniexiean ‘Law. Institute, Mind: T Pe nal? ¢ ‘ode, O01, 2305.19(1) (Propesed Oflicial Draf 162) - sevesteceeces t Arluke, Sumurary of Parole Rules, 1) Crime and -Delinqueney P67 (1969) Lt. Seaamnavniand se slieyaseskens LAG AT Cohen, F., S¢ ntencing, Probation aud thee Rehabilita. tive Ideal: The V te we front Me nipaee, Rlay, 47 ian L. Rev. 1. (1969) ec. ia aissnivuekskvennduncetvasesiapevesaes Ove Cohen; W., “Due Process, Equal Protection and State: Parole Rerocuioir Proceedings, 42 0. Colo. L. Rev. : 47 ( (1970). 2 eect Banal estes sseecyexisanttVonesivanasns pac titereasins teepetide LY comment, Due pie ss and Rivoc vation of ( ‘onditional . ‘Liberty, 12"Wayne L. Rev. G38 (1966)... een 2S ae Cofnment, rhe doni and Re habili ‘tation in on Pe vo- cation’ He arings, T2 Yale Ld, B08" (1962) oe. | Ss Comment,’ Observations on the P Lininiste Lie On Of, | Parole, 79 Yale 1.7, 698 (1970) BRIEF OF THE AMERIC AN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. AMICUS CURIAE «Interest of Amicus* _ The American Civil Liberties. Union-.is a “nationwide, non-partisan organization -of over 170,000 members dedi- cated: solely to preservation .of the. liberties .safeguarded by the Bill'of Rights. During its fifty-one vear existence the ACLU has been particularly concerned with the- funda... mental guarantees of due process of law under the Four- teenth Amendment. In‘the ‘past several years, the ACLU thas -also bee ‘ome involved in prisoners’, tights cases. and With ‘bringing the protections of due: proc ‘ss of law to the prisons. ' More recently, a National Prisoners’ Rights Project has heen instituted by the-ACLU to increase our comniitment to this area of erucial national concern. Based » * Letters of consent from the State of Towa and frown counsel for _ Petitioners have beey filed with the clerk of the @ourt. - . ”% 2 onour experience, We feel this case is a vitally important one, and belie ‘ve that our brief will be of. substantial assis- tance to the Court.- = . ° . . baad The Question Presented Whether revocation of parole. or ‘probation’ without no- tice of charges or a earring. violates the ‘Fourteenth Amendment of the: United. States Constitution by depriv- ing a person of libe rts, without due process of law. . . . « | Antroduction. — > aon two petitioners jn this case were 1 ranted parole by the state of Towa. Subsequently. eac te Was arreste «das a ieee viol tor and retu red, to-prison. Neither was eiven any notice “the reasons for revocation of their. parole ' Throughout ie rie, arguments wail bé*made whic h apply to the revecation of both probation and parole, since *(t)he central , fact, which applies to both probation .and parole revocations, is that fevouation. ix the event which operates to‘deprive a man of his. ‘liberti." Guatsby Vv. Gagnon, 322 I. Supp. 460, 463 (ED. Wis.. - 171). This preposition is widely accepted. See Bearden vz State OF mouth A ‘arolina, 443 F.2d 1090, 1097-98. (4th Cir’ 1971) (ew . bane Wenter, J concurring in part and dissenting in part): Unit Md. StateNer rel. Bey v. Conneetiout State Boardof Parole, 443 F.2d 1079, 1047 42d Cir. 1971) . ringers y V. Brewer, 443° F.2d 942, OT-960 “Osth’ Cir, WITT) Clay, J... dissenting } ; Rose v. Hashing, {388 F.2d 91598. 103 (6th Cir. 19688 (Celebrezze, J.,’ dissenting) : United States cr rel. Carioscia Vv. Meisner, 331. F. Supp. 655, 647 (N.D. Hl. Me ); People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d 376, 267 N.E.2d 238, 241, B18S'N.Y.S.2d 449 (1971); Warren ¥. ‘Michigan ao Board, 23 Mich. App. 754, 179 N.W: Jd 664, 670 n. - 22 TCt. App. 1970), appeal dismissed, 384 Mich. 812, 184 N.W.2d° ~ 457 (1971); Comment, Due Process and Revocation of Conditional Liberty, 12.Wayne L. Rev. 658° 61966): S. Rubin, Duc Process [3 Required iW Parole Revocation Proceedings, June Federal Prola- ”-fronsd2, 45 (1963): . . ae aaa ; . ° . = . . : i 3 , . oat : - 3 és ong e or. an opportunity. to contest or respond to- the charges. No hearing was held, no witnesses were called to testify against petitioners, no opportunity to: siamon witnesses yras afforded them. No counsel was allowed to assist peti- _tioners, no findings © were miade reearding the nllewed vio- lations.* In shagt _ each man was snatched off the sttects.- s r a by imprisoning aman fora long period of time on, another ® ene Pee Curtis y amen’ 2 56 Towa 1164. 131 N cAV. 2d 1 (1964), ; cert. denicd, 380 U.S. 958 (1965), holding that lowa law does not: require a hearing upon the revocation of parole. . the probationer may be * révoked’ atan cr parte proceed- ing and learn about the: reyocafion ondy while in the sheriff's vary on the way to-prisen. If.he is told why he was revoked, he may have to be satisfied with the answer that the judge did not feel that -he‘was making a satisfactory adjustment.” .F. Cohen. NS: niencing, ‘Probation avd the Rehabilitative Idcal: The View from Mcmpa +2, sions Tex. L: Rev. 1 | (1969). = man’s tnshbstanti: ited allegations that he has violated a. condition of his parole? , . The lanzuage of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear— aman cannot be deprived: of his liberty. without clue process oflaw. Before a man can be sent to, prixon. our most Fuda- . “mental notions of fairness require at ‘the very least thai he be informed of the charges upon which he is being im: prisoned and that he be afforded: the opportunity to re- spond to them. _Beeause, this opportunity was denieel - ‘ti- tioners, they have bee ‘A uncons stitution: lly ‘mprisoned. OL. , ‘The seriousness of the lone of. a man’s ‘Seeedind, funda- mentak concepts of fairness, and basic penological goals of rehabilitation all require the application of due proc: * ess before the revocation of probation and parole. : An overwhelming number. of State and Federal courts, rélying. primarily upon Goldberg ve Nelly; BOT US. 254- (1YTO) and Mempa v.. Rhay, 389 US. 128.1967) 2 have come to recognize'that the deprivation of freedom suffered bya person whose oie as or parole is revoked is-such Md . / . ‘ * Mempa/ lay been used primarily ‘to sfipport’ the proposition that: due process requires the assistance of counsel ; at probation and “parole revocation hearings. See.e.g.,.Gunsolus y. Gagnon? 10. Cr. L. 2282 (th ‘Cir. Dee: 28, 1971) ; United Stalés er rel. Bey v. Con-, - mecticut State Board of Parole, es a n..1: Hewett x. North Caro- lina, 415 F.2d 1316 (4th Cir, 1969) ¢ Ashworth.v. United States, - 391 F.2d 245 (6th Cir.’ 1968). (per nauieays Groolsby v. Gagnon,. suprd, n.1; Searpoelliv. Gagnon, 317 F.Supp: 72 (EAD. Wis. 1970); People cv rel. Menechine v. Warden, supra, n. 1; Warren v. Michi-- gan Parole Board, supra, n. 1; Commonwealth vy. Tinson, 433 Pa. 5258, 249 Ad 549 (1969) ; Gargan vy. State, 217 So.2d 578 (Ct. App. Fla. 1969); Sfaté-v. Seymour, 98 N:J. Super. 526, 237 A.2d 900 (196s). 3 : v , o a “erievous loss that due process standards must be applied. * to. the proceedings. 4 a 7 | . As the Tenth Cireuit Court of Lppeals said recently, in Murray v. Page, 439 F. Yd 1359, 1361-62- (10th Cir, 1970): The interest. of: the individual parolee is hens very great. ‘He has been found guilty of a erime, deemed worthy of rehabilitation and. ‘consequently given the privileze.of parole.. Parole revocation there-. fore terminates. a valued, if conditional, hberty; per- sonal fr ecdom——whether classified as a grace, privilege . .or’as constructive custody—has been unalterably Te- Barrel —e _ ee 7 * * * * * -. Therefore while a prisoner doesnot have a constitu- tional right to parole, once” paroled he cannot be’ de- prived ‘of his freedom by méans inconsistent with: due process. The minimal right of the -parolee to be in- formed: ‘of the charges and the nature of the evidence against him and to appear ‘and be heard at the revoca- tion heari ing is inviolate. Statutory deprivation of this right as manifestly inconsistent with due process: and .. . Is unconstitutional.” gn es ° All but eight states afford minimum due process upén the revo! "cation of pakole. See Appendix A, which sets forth the law pezatd- ‘ing parole r revoc ation hearings 1 in al] states,: ® Accord: Gunsolus v. Gagnon, supra. n.1 (due provess requires ‘counsel at probation revocation hearing .; Peartlen v. Neuth hal lina, supra, ne 1 (hearin® required for revocation of provation ) United Statce er rél. Bey Vv. Connecticut: State Board of Parole: supra, n, 1 (due process requires counsel at parole revocation hear- ing): Hahn vy. Buxke, 430 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1970) ‘hearing re- quired for. revocation of” probation) : Murphy v. Turner; 426 F.2d 422 (10th. Cir. Ene Aer é oe de F.2d 214 (10th Cir. a ’ ° F . + The judicial position’ that due pr ocess: requires a hearing upon the revocation of probation’ or "parole Is supported - by, virtually all those who have studied the area. The Task Force on -Corrections: of the President's Commission \ Law Enforeement and the Administration of Justice dp- A , clar ed: “VT Jhe need to insure that coercive decisions v@pily - aliveting the dives of @ nders ‘Are net made through | ; . prejudice, on the hasis of Inadequate or. incorrect: in- > - formation, or without: rational relation to their pure a poses or justifications, réquires, significantly areater* alee ck salusns ards ‘than now exist in most correction: ul svs- - tems. . resident’ x * Cotumission on Law bt nforceme nt - m2 and Administration of Justice, Cyrrections | 3 (1967). a) -' : o 2 ey , bat The Task IF orce reeonun ended that all deejsions which po- 8 we altect conditidnal liberty be render ed only. after. . + n he arin: ‘It ix inconsisfentiwith onr whole system of ‘govern- ment to grant such uncontrolled power ty any, officials. ‘9. Sparti¢ularly over the. lives of, ee ~The t fact thi it \ tC, RAP tig aaa PR De IN E ae Oe Oe e aR Pa De a ea SO T70). Cminimum due. phocess heating 1 eqnired’' for revocation of parole): Hewett vy. Nor tha Aarolina, supra, vn. 4.( due’ process requires | —. “counsel at probation ‘revoeation Tearing) »-Eleerr v. Hammond, - 116 F.2d 982 "(6th Cir, WY41) (hearing xequired for revocation. of ~*. eonditional pardon) ; United States ex rel. Carioscia vy. Meisner, supra, ne 1 Y due provess required for parole revocation hearing); ” Goolshy ¥. Gaynor, supra, n. 1, heatiie requeted for revocation of parele): Alots «f al. v. Ohio Adult. Parole Authoggty 330 F. Supp. 665 (N.D. Ohio 1971) (urges overruling Toye Haskins, ‘supra and requiring hearing for’revocation of parole ES ople er rel, Mencchino- ‘Vv. Warden, supra, no 1 (due proce Cs rea s hearing “with counsel before parole revocation) ; Warren ¥. Michio n Parole Board, supra, n, 1 (due process requires counsel. at pardhy ” vation hearing) + Chase ve Page, 456 P. 2d 990 COKL Cr. A69) hear- * ing required for revocation of parole). x: See : . sf 4 ’ . oe. ee . : : at a pel rson “hi is been, convicted, of a crime ‘should not me ean ¥ . that he has forteited all riglits tg demand that he be. \ 7 fairly treated by re als'\ ae . Plas oe | \ 0-4. For some kinds " deGisions, sucli a decisions t9 | x Pree probation or oo offOers shoulel he ae. = | \ - corded the: basic elements. ‘of due process, sich as te an notice, represé ntatign by conte I, and: opportunity ‘to: - \present evidence . and to aes nel CTOSS: examine ba ~ . ’ es ‘celestial law, corrections, and ilie: process -to discuss Hiis*- isstie inthe las “f few veats, The. A. B.A. Project on Mini- “hum Standards of Crimin; al Justice: Stundarils Relating 6 Prov iding Defense Services + Approved Draft 1968), .: recommends the appointment of counsel in pa role revoca- tion proceedings, clearly enyisioning “a hearing in every, such instance. -The American Law Institute’s Model Peni -. Code. provides for-a hearing in every pa role. revocation, 8 with the assistance of counsel, American: Law Institute, Model- Penal Code; an opportunity, to he she: ird encourages cmbittermient and “frustration. f oS ee : odes. ss : S : “ . » . . . e a ae : . ‘ > ‘ . : i ; 3 ; ‘ . ‘ J , he parole system ts an enlightened effort qn the part’: of society to rehabilitate e6nvicted criminals. “Cer-, tainly no cireunstance could further. that purpose. to. ‘a greater extent than a firm belief on the part of such . J offenders in tlie Ke 6 anliurried, objective and thorough processes, 0 the machinery of Jaw, and hagity ‘any circumstance could with greater effect im- e . c ws Law 7 seatise, § $7.16 (995 58) ; 2 -Dawson, Sente scing—The ‘Dechied as .to. “the Penho-Cofrectional Proecss.-45. Minn. L. Rev.-.803 (1961) :- ] ype. - Length and Conditions of Se ntence CAmeri¢an Bar ~~ Proundayi ion revs S. Kag@ish,.The- Advocate and the Expert in | ‘Tobriner\ Dué Process Be hind Prison Walls, The Nation, Oct! 18, 1971; Vak Dv Right to Status.and the Priivilege Concept, 1969 Duke Ld: 139; Comment, . oo Safeguards in Federal V'arole Revocation Hearings, AT Nw. U LL. ove 737 (1963); Comment, Due Process, RW ayne L: ss Rev. supra, nL; Comment, Freedom and ek cndchetins in Parole Revocation Hearings. te Yale Ii.J. 368 (1962); Note, Parole Revox: cation Procedures, 65-Harv. L. Rev: 300 (1951) ; Note, Discretionary — Revocation of Probation and Parole, The Import of. Mempa v. Rhay, tothe. Present System, 4 US... ‘Rev. 160 °(1969) 5 Note, Re- Arrest of -Parolevs: ee ee 46° Wash. L. Rev.175 (19705. 490° (1935). st this Court in recent years has rejected ~ the theery that characte ‘rization. of an interest. asa: “privi- lege’ ‘rather thanaa “right tific ary. termination’ wfthout due process. of law. In Goel: Aberg Ve ; Kelly, supra, the Court ‘held. thiat ‘welfare recipients ninst’ be -given ‘a hearing he ‘fore. their -hene fits could be terminated.” eh — 4 “*,°1° See also: R: Dawant: Reni ccna ABA. supra,-n. 8: Jacob and Sharma, Justice After Frial:. Prisoners’ Need for Legal: Scr- vices tn the Criminal-Correétianal Process, 18 Kan. L. Rey. 493, D40-550 (1970); S. KRacish, 45°"Minn. L. Rev..supra,n, 8:8: Rubin, Developments in Correctional Laws, Crime ands Delinqueney 185 (April 9702. ROSktaty kai and Practice in Probation and. Paral : ‘them? * though expel ses ineurted by holding such hearings. . AT . ; oa & :. . Rececatin Hearings, 59 J. Grim. LC. & PS. 175, T9T-14964}.——__| i For a refut: ition of the triditionaily, advanded arguments on the detrimental impact hearings wowld have on the parole aud probation system, see Rose v. Haskins, supra, 388 F.2d at 101-102° (Celebrezze, J., dissenting) ; Comment, Due Process, 12 Wayne L. oe. Rev. i supra, n. 1: authorities cited, n. 10, ont, ; a e ~" ° ' ¥ ar : : : .s oy . . Mire We : ‘ ye ‘ Sees . te Po a. ents pace eee - . s . ” . re > . . « Laas a n . i ‘coustitttional: challenge, eaniot bs answ ered. by an: argument that public assistance benefits “are “a ‘privi- lege’ -and not a ‘vight? . The exte nt to jpyhich “pr ocedural due Rrocess int bei afforded the recipient. is influenced’ by: the: extent to which’ he may he “con. : _ demned -to* Suffer, er levous: loss,” Joint Anti- saa tide Refugee: Committee y MeGrath,- 341 QE SS. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, es concurring); and depends: “upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that: » ‘loss outweighs ‘the government interfst in- hamary adjudication. 397 USS. at 262-26 See Aes e '" Goldberg v, K elly is onl one of a long Time of Supreme Cort cafés which recognize that wherever: freedom or security is threateried, ‘due proéess protections must be ei ‘ accorded, whether the impending loss is characterized as a- “privilege” or. a “right”? Thus, those facing discharge’. from employment, Greene v; McE lroy, 360 U.S..474 (19% 59); ~Slochower v.: Board of ‘Higher Education: 350. US . 551 M956), or those brought before inv estigating committees, Haunah ve Larche, 363-U.S. 420 (1960), ‘are entitled to __ an adequate notice of charges and a hearing. on. those of. ". “charges.” : Cases which hayé applied the Goldberg. rule, which weighs the seriousness of. ‘the threatened loss against the . Inconvenience to the State of applying due process, have giving ‘that’ the loss of a variety of benefits, all of which may be said to he les: significant than imprisonment, are * See also, Sostke v. McGinnis; supra “(due process hearing. re- - quired. before. time ‘credited to prisoner's sentence can be taken away or other seriouwS punishment: imposed ) ; Van Alstyne, The _ Demise of the Riyhts-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, 81 Hary. L: Rev.. 1439. (1968); K. Davis, Aiinistrative Law Treatise §7.04 (1970 Supp.), §7.11 (1955). , -” tages re aye ig iy 2 : ?. sufficiently grievous to require hearing _ These include - garnishment- af wages,” loss of a ettis er’s : license, * Toss: of the ability to putehase liquor,"” expulsion from school,” . cee from: public hosing, Fe ‘and termination of water. > See also, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U S. 398 (196: 3) 5 Spei iser » Randall, 357 Us 513 (1: 58}. . ne ee . # - T inie one’s freedoni. and. be. returned to ‘prison ‘for! a = of years, is assuredly to.* ‘suffer a grievous, loss,” and tlie interest jn avoiding that loss of freedom cert tainly “outweighs the, xovernmental interest in summary. adjudi, ; edition.” Coldbe rg. v. Kelty? s supra; 307 US: at 263: 9 In- balancing th inconveience wkd’ ‘cost. “to the ‘ate ~ against the — wrongful loss of an individual's ‘free- ~ dom,' for many vears, the result 1S clear. ' I -arole and ‘pro- bation rev oc ation. aca such drastic curtailments of ( es. ; Si reedom that due process standards must be applied. As" Pas =the.Court wrote recently_in Bodilie v.C saa clicut, 401 U sv 371, 377-378 (1971) : aN * Karly i in our jurisprudence, this. Court voiced the doc- a —— The teine that, sdue process ‘of law, signifies. a right to be heard: in car 4 . one’ s defense’ has. continually: recir red*. . + Although. : Im] any controv ersjes . jiav e raged about, the oe Sen “and abstract words of the Due Process Clause,’ Ce -there can be.no doubt that ata minimuni they require that. Teprivation of life, like ty. or property hy adjudi- cation. be preceded ‘by notice and opportunity for . |... Shearing appropriate to the case fe Mations omitted]... .* iB. Due Process Guarantees Apply to.the Rendocation Wy Ce i] Probation and Parole Even if the Probatipner or 3 fe ee Parolce Is Considered in Some Sense Sall, Xo Be eo Sie £ ustody”” Although Released From ‘Prison. a The other major the Ory which has ‘been heavily relied fipon to. deny minimal due process gui ‘antees in: re vocition _ of probation or parole equates ooh olee or probationer i witli the prison “trusty” who, although he may be per. mitted -outside the prison walls, “éannot complain. that his By constitutional Tights have ‘heen violated if his - a are withdrawn.” "Rose. Haskins, Supra, 388 F.2d at 95. E a . — —~This: th \eory treats revoe ation of parole as a matter of ad-» ~ - 2 ministering prison’ diseipline. mee ae Po ee ae : \ ’ The consitintonal rights : week he. claims were violated apply prior to, eonvietion. They are not ap- | Pics fe encase’ toa convicted felon whose convictions and sen- => * . a) eee : . is . as eee , : ot soe . F z sie : *"X third. traditio : s that the terms of a. probation or’ - oe" at rder constitute a contract betweei n the sovereign. and the’ * conviet in w hich the latter agrees to xarious conditions, one of which thay be revocation at the will of the sovereign without hearing or: ¢ Ae notice, - Any analo ey to the law of contracts, indicates that -this_ “acreement” is little more than‘a contract of adhesion. See Mofris-. sey V. Brewer, supra, 443 F.2d at 962-063; Ylahn v. Burke, supra, Jf. 7 $80 F.2d at*104-105; Rose ve Maskins, supra, 388 F.2d-at 99-100 i (Celebrezze, J., dissenting) .. ie ey ; . : 14 © e b * oa” (el Ace Fa eee sf : Pa aS : Ais tips ae a ~ tences aire’ | “lid and aden table and w hose sentences - have. not béen’ served. Rose \ - Haskins, supra, 388 oF, 2q' at 95. : ag EN oh ae Be ” y; ene te 2 This tay is fallacious in tivo respects. ‘First, at wrongly 2 ‘asstunes ,thiat incarcerated persons are not entitled tot the safegudrds of the Constitution. But courts have held’ time and again that the” Due Process Clause applies to prison: ors.” : Particularly: apposite are those. cases which have | ‘Meld that a prisoner cannot be punished ‘without minimutn - due process safeguaraly.” “AAS the Pecond Circuit etated, I - Bostre \ ve McGinnis; supra: ae are ee S nae substantial deprivatior 5 to ne visited upon as priso is wise: that such: action’ Should at least ——— we s ” ; e | ‘ spa dictontinm, facilities are state functions.” They-are subject ‘to. federal authorit?: ‘only where _paraen dunt federalate nstitutional or statutory nt -rights supervene. It is clear, how ever, that. in instances where state ‘regtwations applicable to inmates of prison facilities con fliet with Such iat the regulations.may_ be invalidated.” Joh nson V. AVETYye 393 US 2. 486 (1969): a . er 40 LW. 4136 “Jan. 13... ~ 1972): Sostre ¥.o McGinnis, santas: Holaa v.:Scafati, 430 K.2d 548:. (Ist Cir. 1970) 3, Enited States exr-rel. Campbell v. Pate, 401 P.: a _ 3 Laridman ¥. Peyton, 370 F. 2d 135, (4th ¢ 1966) ; Urbano v. McCorkle, I. Supp. 10-Cre L. 2301 (DiNUJ., Nev: 17, 1979/ ; Sinelair.v. He ndlerson. $31- F. Supp. 1123 . (ED. ‘La. 1971) : Landman vy. Royster, : 33 KF. Supp.- ‘621 (FD. Va. 1971) ; Cluchette v. Procuntér, 328 -F. Supp. 767 €N.D. Cal. 1971); Bundy. v. Cannon, 328 F. Supp. 165° (D. Md. 1971); Meola v.. Fitz: patrick, 222: ¥. Supp .878 (D. Mass. .1971) : Wright v. McMann, 59 (7th Cir.- 1963 321-F. Supp. 127 _.(N-D.N:Y- 1970) > Carter. Vv: McGinnis, 320 F Supp, ti (WD.N.Y. W70) ; Dabney -v. “Cunningham, $17 F. . :. Supp. - 2.D. Va. 1970) ; Caro! hers v. -Follette, 314F. Supp. . 1014. SDNY. 1970) ; Morris ‘v. Travisono, 310.4 pp. 897 (D. R.I.- 1970). + Rodriguez v. McGinnis, 307- F. Supp. 627 (N. Dd. ONL. -1969), afd, - F.2d - . 1972) (en bane) y United States er. rel. Hancock v. Paic: ao FF. ; tec 202 (N.D. Ill. 1963).- a) ae (Dockét, 34567,.2d Cir., Jan. 25, . aa: : ; x a > . , 1) ° . A 2 e oa be premised ¢ on facts” ‘rationally determined. .In Ue fe on: most cases it would. probably be difficult tO: ‘and an int- ee s Z ree ‘quiry fair. and: rational unless: the prisoner were con-. : | Se a nr with the: avetisation, informed of, the evid nee* a "tydeed. ‘Bostre, hok sate that fdue prvedss requires - Ag - hearing befoxe ¢ wor time can, be taken from. a etnies = 4 bistiePthat due process applies to. punishment afteet- a ing conditional liberty in the fufure® - Conseqiently, ‘due |. process must certainly Ve applied to conditional) | liberty pe - Drese ntly ‘enjoyed. Pee ee aay ga = fe : | Those cases whieh hav e io ld. tat a prisoner who is tobe > ~ ; we traiisferred from. a prison, to an institution for the crim~ “t mally i insane must be afforde 1 complete constitutional pro- ustody” ‘thedry. Ba. rstrom: , eee lye - United States ex rel. Schuster ee (2d. Cir. 1969). ‘The rationale of. prisoner’ ¢ form of custody cannot be dgstically changed without his being afforded the. protec-. —, «tions of due process. * it see ms clear; therefore,’ that the > Herold, 410. B.2d., 107 -.’ -these eases ix that s . i parole ee Or probationer why enjoys his freedom on. the -. + - streets but who is suddenly seized and re- imprisoned a4 névessarily entitled to equal. due process safeguards. Tt’ ; . ‘ ; . 6 mee : :* Saas ¥. McCiinnis,. supra; ‘Nolan ¥. “Scafat i. supra, a Sie iS ; ire ed States er rel. Cantphell.v., Pate, supra, n. 22: United ‘States Be ex rel. Mosher v. LaVallee, 321 F. Supp. 127 (N:D.N.Y, 1970):° ° Carothe rs V. Follette, supra, n. 22; Rodriguez v. McGinnis, supra, * ft. Médlock v> Burke, 285 F. Supp. 67 (E.D. Wise. 1968) : niled States ex rel: Hancock Vv. Pate, supra, n. 22." - 3 a 4 See also Williams v. Rot inson, 432 F 2d 637 (De, Cir. 1970) : ; \d Covington vy. Harris, 419 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir.’ 1969) ; Edwards v. \ Schnidt, 321 F «Supp. 68 Cw: D. Wi ise..1971>). Ore! 3 a a -- . : ’ ‘ : : ae . as é = \ Supp. ‘. streets, living with his, family, holding a, job, restricted Le ¢ ay. “. wr e - a hearing, hefore being: punished or subject ted toa transfer iy * should also’ be noted that, paroleessand prabsitioners are en titled to constitutional protections Ww hile actaally: on parole. ‘See e.g., Porth 2U naded States, “F.2d 10 CHL: L: 29O4.(S S.D. N: X. 4971), both of w hich sti ek down conditions which Ww ere held to impinge. on the parelees’ KF irst Amend. -ment rig slits. a, ve oe. ae — 8 a6, = ke é -€ ~ Sécondly, “the “construetiy e cl ustody™ theory is. neither logic al nor r ealistic.. Surely the status of a man fide on: ‘the omy: ‘in certatn are: is of his life and reguined to report to his: supervising oflicer weekly or monthly, is entirely differ--: “ent from the st ats. of a man, locked behind bars.» ‘The “ prisoner is isolated from family and friends, cannot earn. “money to: support, himself or his family, is subject to a "welds ‘of rules and regulations that: reginent - ‘every: aspect of his life, has*ho, privacy, no normal sexual outlets, ‘and, no control over his free dom ar his life. Morrisse’ y VY. 2 Bre wer, supra, 443 F.2d at 961; n. 1s (Lay, J. dissenting) ; er ee also. Note, _Re- Arrest of Parolees, Constitutional ( me ‘side rations, 46° Ww ash. L: me Vc atg.\.-- parr ee pe - Furtheynore, if it were true that the pardlee: or pro- bationer. continued to hel in the custody, of the State much — -as a prisoner, one w ould expect. that he ‘would he entitled. - to receive credit against his sentence for, the time he was released. This : howeve ry, is. ‘rarely the case. _ See: Arluke, A Summary ‘of Parole Rules, 15 Crime’ and. Delinquency - 267 (1969) ; Note, Parole Rev ocation in th e Federal, System: 56 Geo: LJ. 705, 7325 733 (1968). ote to ae Wrerctore. since a prisoner in aettial’ ‘éustbdy is granted constitutional s safeguards; including the rizht. to notice and. . . - ~ - ‘2 ‘ Oe so - * - . e . . . , a ef “* * ° . a 58 Se cl ‘4 se . Sa nd . & » > ue % i: °?. | ae Xa - which radically alters his status, fleas same prot lca ee must apply to the m: man who. is only. fetionally in eu marae Saree | while, ori probation or parole. se he I ee as Due. process requirés a sheasing | upon -revééation tae | probation or eee, es ae ‘ : e. A. The Crounds je Finding a Violduion of te es | S . Conditions of Probation or Parole. fie Ace Nag, . The ‘need for: a hearfyg sipon_ve rev ‘o¢ation ‘of probation or. ‘paro e is. emphasized when one recognizes low often revo- - ‘cation is based upon violation: of petty requirements bear-. $ ing little. or no. relation to, common concepts of, anti- social o behavior. -. Some parole conditions, are ‘pinkalintie: most: are im- *- i practical, others ‘impinge on- human. right’, ahd’ all) . Tefleet - obsolete crimiriologieal conceptions. .On ‘the’ whole | they. project a “percept of” a man who doesn’t : - exist. Arluke, op. cit. supra, = Crime and Delinqueney ‘ at 269. ee ee Me, Se ee Conditions of parole or probation which: can tesulfi in rev 0- -cation ean include consumption of liquor, changing job: or residence, marriage ‘without: permission, driving a.car, in- debtedness, violating a ‘curfew, contracting a venereal dis= .. "ease, or leaving a preseribed location." Revocation for. violating such patently trivial conditions. is common in” every state, as illustrated in + Appendix Be ° - ‘ —_—— : - 5. Sep Appendix B, charting frequency y of common parole oe 4 tions i in each state. pe eae : ; ees ae 2 Sh a aRe o -°* cation ,of a, man’s ; parole: for assogn Sak Ste ‘ . & ‘ . e - The violations - themselves are. lso often’ subject 6 i * fictual-dispute. This Court has recet tly reversed the rey a ing. with: other exe's | _cony icts when’the only proof ‘of. the violation consisted of. 7 the. fact that ‘the ex-convicts were employed at the sane establishment «where the parolee , worked. Arciniega A om reeman, 404°ULS. 4 (ro71) (‘per curiam). Tn Fle ming ¥, Tats supra, the parole e Was: “reimprisoned Yor Tes avine the state without -permission, to attend hts sister’ ‘Tune ral. Hr’ was not: pe srmitted to. produce testimony from his parole sponsor who had given’ him, permission to. go, undef the » amistaken be let tat he had the authority’ to do SO. Condi- tional release. was rev oked in Moore ve. Re id, 246 F.2d 654 “@, C. Cn . 1957 )s on the" eround that writing ‘letters: toa i * formér ecllmaté violated a®patole condition forbidding. ass |. . ‘soci lation with persons- havi Ing a known ‘criminat hack- | ‘eround.”* a a ai - : ; oe gees \ .. Thus, the nature of a violation. can‘ often be fot, only. *s - Inco rath but can turn ‘on. purely feetual questions and fears about potential ‘future. misconduct}; Genet v. United record and de nving this alleged fact). - * 4 . States, 379 -P2d 966 (10th Cir. 1967) (revocation for failure to “find ‘ sufffciet income to maintain ordered Jeyel of support pay- whieh could be readily refuted if a hearing were allowed. B. The Réquisites of ¢ a “Hearing. This Court long ago émphasize “d that the “fundamental requisite’ of due-process of law ts the opportunity to’ he 25 See ‘also Cited States er'rel. Bey v. Cannes fiat State Board’ of Parole, supa, n. 1 (revocation based priinarily on suspicipry { ments forfamily) > United States that as. 321. F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1963) 0: revocation far failing to pay fine) ;- Goolsby v. Gagnon, supra, n. 1 (revocation primarily for: leaving parole superyisor’s offce without permission): Prople cr. rel. Menechito v. Warden, svpra.n. 1 (revocation, for “consorting” with persons with criminal. . Bestar yale 2 ay pus: a * heard? Grannis ¥ Ordean, 338 USS. "395, 304 (i914). In - Goldber® . ty. Kelly, supra, the’ Court defined’ the’ minimal . Es pal of W-hearing as ane We aS ely and. adequate: noticg detailing. the reasons ‘for’ va pl foposed [change in status], ‘and an effective oppor- a tunity to detend by confronting, any adverse’ witnesses - and -by _pkesenting: hIs\ own. argunientss and evidence ° ordlly. 397 US. at 267: 268." Tn the revocation ofr obation or ‘parole, the ‘sake must © ‘give specifie arid detailed descriptions of the conduct com:: -plainéd of by the. authorities. See’ Groppi v. Leslie, CS Fascist R e fuge e Committeen. MeGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171- “72 (1951). (F rankfurter, J. concur fing) ; In re Oliv er, 333 . __ US. 257, 273 (1948); Sostre v. McGinnis, supra, 442 F.2d at 203; Escalera v.N supra. rr a The accused must be allow éd to confront his accuse ers, > Goldherg. \ v. Kelly, supxa; Berger Vv. Caljfornia,. 393 US. 314. (1969) s. Pointer v. Teras, 380 U.S, 400 (196; 5): Willner im os 6 ‘ommitt Ee ON Characte r ‘and Fitne ss, 873 U.S. 96° (1963); Greene wv. McElroy, “360° U.S 474 (1959) ; Davis, 97.05 (1958), supra, n. 12. This is eapecalls erucial i in a parole, ér probatiqn revocation situation where the faéts are dis: . “puted. When a parolee or probationer is charged with a "=. there are:no statu- “tory or Judicial guidelines. to follow and no- interpretations vagu € violation such as “consorting, - 7 See cene erally : ~W. Cohen: Due Process, 42 UV. Colo..L. R.. supra, n. 8: Puth and Carver,.Due Proéess and Senten: ang: from Mapp to Monpa to MeGautha, 49 Tex. L, Rev. 25 (1970). ; ** See discussion, pp. 17- 18. supra, and Appendix B. ~*~ « - . - ' / S.LW. 4151 (Jan"13, 1972) ; Pun ecu York. City Housing Authority, . , ¢ & 2 . ? . : ae a pe of. parole, éonditions to which one. cam turn. Parole: oflice rs may he ove rworked and i impr operly trained, and often they are insufficiently informed about a parolee’s activities.” They’ may even display, bias or animosity -towards the “parolee «or ‘probatione - ‘For thesereasons, | it is inipera- - tive’ that the acetisar ‘anid the: accused meet face to Lace to allow the board -ta,. ascertain the ‘truth: : | - Certain principles have remained re Jatively ‘immiuta- ble in our jurisprudence. One of these is that eee or -ernmental Retion seriously injures an individual. ‘and the reasonableness of the action depends. on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Governnient's. case inust be disclosédto the individual so that he thas an-opportunity to Miow-that it is'untrue. While this is important.in ‘the case of documentary evidence, it is even more intportant. where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose me mory might he faulty or who, in. fact, might he perjurers or persons” - . motivated by malice, vindictiveness or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements - of confrontation _ and cross-¢ xamination: Greene %, Mck lroy. supra, (3600 U =. at 496. a . In-Cuited. State ser rep. * the parole hoard’ s failuye to produce its sources of informa- Carioseia v. Mei ner, Supra, ne 1, tion or to allow the pqtitioners to examine reports made to the board was challenged. It was held that the board's failure to produce its sources er, in the alternative, its-re- . ports, vrolated the petitioners’ Sixth: Amendment right to confront the witnesses against them. In reaching that con- | ‘ *° Task Force. Report, Corrections, supra n..7, at ‘6, 70, 97-99; Dawson, Sentencing, supra n. 8, at 317-338. - . -_ | : oy | sition, the court aie rved that sitioush the hoard alre: addy’ __proviiled some procedufal safegnards—a hearing. was held reasonably soon after the alleged ‘vio! lation, and reasonably near the site of the violation, and: the accused. could retain éounsel and call voluntary ‘witnessés—more was Trecessary : . “due. process requires an. opportunity for. the aggrieved person to confront and cross examine adverse. witnesses.” 331 F. Supp. at 649, citing Goldberg v. Kelly, supra. Opportunity for the presentation of witnesses on behalf - of the probationer or parole e is also an important's safeguard © - against unfair or arbitrary decisions. It. allows the man the opportunity td corroborate his own version of events, .to prove ‘an alibi defense; and in general’ to overcome the ale ‘ . oe — . ‘ ® a . . ‘inherent suspicion as to his veracity by reason of his in- earceration. It is not*contended. that the probationer or parolee should have subpoena powers. Where, however, material witnesses voluntarily come forward on iis behalf, there is no logical reason for exeluding, their sworn teésti- mony from a. hearing body, seeking to learn the truth. This appears to be. such a basic precept of fairness tat courts’ - often conclude, without more, that vohintary witnesses must 7 be allowed, as the Carioscia court held. The Fourth Cirenit. Court of Appeals, in Bearden v.*South Carolina, supyo. n. 1, has agreed:: * . . the parolee was entitled to notice - ‘of hts allezed ScEstie and opportunity to rebut the same, -- including: the right to be heard pro se before: someone rep-| resenting the boartl, and to present witnesses in his own behalf,”*443 F. 2d at 1095 (emphasis added). Finally, the decision reached “by. tie Boatd inst be based on ev idence addueed at the he: ar ing: a of ; ‘ i, : oe 4 . which the ‘prisoner. has had. the opportunity to . Tefute ...-To permit punishment to be imposed for . te 22 "reasons: not présentel and aired would j inv ite arbitrari I- ness and-nullify the right to notice and a hearing... The practice of going outside the record mM search of bases forspunishmeént must cease. Landman v. Royster,’ a sets, oe F. Supp. at 653- oo4. : Sa ee See Bs: Goldbe TY V. Kelly, supra, 307 U.S. at. 271; Es- calara v. New York City” Housing Authority, supra, 425 ‘Fi2d at 862- 3. ‘ety “es , Moreover, there must be some minimum standard of- proot to justify a dee - Arciniega vy. Freeman, supra, Thompsow v. Louisville, 362 US 199 (1960). In ckrerire qa this Court summarily A ed 2 judgment of the 9th Cir- cuit upholding the revocation of probation for violating its conditions by associagng with ex-conviets. Who. were: ‘employed at the s same place as the probationer. It held - that there must he * satisfactory evidence” of a violation, and that “oceupational association, standing : lone, feduld not: be] satisfactory. evieence on non- n-busintess ASSOC Jation “violative of, the parole restriction,’ This: case suggests that, not only must there be * satisfactory evidence” of a » Violation of conditions of probation or parole, but dlso- that sue h conilitions must be re asonably construed.” . ' Dawson, supra, p. 367. See also, Appendix B. . A Aker See Md aes eee tek — mos 7 a Pan Bom oot ee ge, } mets ~oe, | a, For. the reasons stated above, the judgment below should be. reversed. ° . Respectfully submitted, aa an - 06 Metvin LL. Wuir- » MICHELE HeRMANN 1 oe oe Fe 3 Herman ScHwarrz Ropert Pior KIN Ricnharp SINGER . . Jorn Gora ae - _ a american Civ il Lihertees Union . - 156 Fifth Av enue New York, New York 10010: a . Attorne YS for Amicus Curiae - - . . - . ar eee February 1972°° . --—— eo * . om | -—- | a . ; ; ‘ . : Pn 7 e ° 4 : ; --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0050%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.