Document: 408 U.S. 471 92 S.Ct. 2593 33 L.Ed.2d 484 John J. MORRISSEY and G. Donald Booher, Petitioners,v.Lou B. BREWER, Warden, et al. No. 71—5103. Argued April 11, 1972. Decided June 29, Syllabus Petitioners in these habeas corpus proceedings claimed that their paroles were revoked without a hearing they thereby deprived of due process. The Court Appeals, affirming the District Court's denial relief, reasoned under controlling authorities parole is only 'a correctional device authorizing service sentence outside penitentiary,' concluded parolee, who still 'in custody,' not entitled to full adversary such as would be mandated criminal proceeding. Held: 1. Though revocation does call for panoply rights defendant proceeding, parolee's liberty involves significant values within protection Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, termination requires an informal give assurance finding violation based on verified facts support revocation. Pp. 480—482. 2. process reasonably prompt inquiry conducted by impartial officer near place alleged or arrest determine if there reasonable ground believe arrested parolee has violated condition. should receive prior notice inquiry, its purpose, violations. may present relevant information (absent security considerations) question adverse informants. shall digest evidence probable cause state reasons holding board's decision. 487. 3. At hearing, which must soon after arrest, minimum requirements are: (a) written violations parole; (b) disclosure against him; (c) opportunity heard person witnesses documentary evidence; (d) right confront cross-examine (unless specifically finds good allowing confrontation); (e) 'neutral detached' body traditional board, members need judicial officers lawyers; (f) statement factfinders relied revoking parole. 487—490. 443 F.2d 942, reversed remanded. W. Don Brittin, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, petitioners. Larry S. Seuferer, Asst. Atty. Gen. respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case whether Amendment State afford individual some his 2 Petitioner Morrissey was convicted false drawing uttering checks 1967 pursuant guilty plea, sentenced more than seven years' confinement. He paroled from Iowa Penitentiary 1968. Seven months later, at direction officer, he home town violator incarcerated county jail. One week review officer's report, Board Parole Morrissey's parole, returned penitentiary located about 100 miles home. asserts received no 3 report acted shows petitioner's basis had conditions buying car assumed name operating it permission, giving statements police concerning address insurance company minor accident, obtaining credit name, failing residence officer. states interviewed Morrissey, could explain why did contact despite effort excuse been sick. Further, admitted also being involved accident. recommended because 'his continual violating rules.' 4 situation petitioner Booher much name. Pursuant forgery 1966 maximum term 10 years. November 14, In August 1969, direction, confined jail several away. On September 13, Booher's recommitted penitentiary, 250 home, complete sentence. 5 with respect territorial restrictions consent, obtained driver's license operated motor vehicle employment condition keep himself gailful employment. stated acknowledged left specified limits 'knowing wrong.' further noted found find work pay him what wanted—he $2.25 $2.75 per hour—and area get another city. 6 After exhausting remedies, both petitioners filed petitions United States Southern alleging denied hearing. responded arguing required. held authority State's failure accord violate appeal, two cases consolidated. 7 dividing 3, require majority recognized view privilege rather vested longer dispositive applicable; however, balancing competing interests involved, court penitentiary', 947; custody.' Accordingly, Appeals prison officials have large discretion making determinations, courts retain reluctance interfere disciplinary matters properly control authorities. expressed 'non-legal, non-adversary considerations' often determinative factors It concern hearings required revocation, 'with accorded proceedings,' function board 'an administrative acting role parens patriae aborted', id., 949, reluctant grant first instance—an apprehension choice between full-scale proceeding all. Additionally, statutory remain law provides institution any time. Our Mempa v. Rhay, 389 128, 88 254, 19 336 (1967), distinguished deferred sentencing upon probation thus stage whereas Appeals' decision consistent many other decisions revocations. 8 brief Court, respondents assert time fact penitentiary. More generally, say revokes individual's orders grants before Board. time, goes over 'each returnee, given orally side story Board.' If returnee denies practice conduct investigation final determination either initial modifying it, reversing it.1 Respondents whose January 31, February 12, 1969. October hearings, tell us—in briefs—both reports. 9 Nothing record supplied indicates respondent claimed, promptly revoked, violations; comes us respondents' here. even assertions make here are public but interviews board. interview show violations, member remember charged. that, according memory, previous years all three returnees commission infractions agreed neither among them. therefore treat posture elected rely Appeals. otherwise, showing charged neutral 11 * Before reaching issue applies system, important recall 12 During past 60 years, releasing prisoners end sentences become integral part penological system. Note, Revocation Federal System, 56 Geo.L.J. 705 (1968). Rather ad hoc exercise clemency, established variation imprisonment criminals. Its purpose help individuals reintegrate into society constructive able, imposed. serves alleviate costs keeping prison.2 essence release prison, completion sentence, prisoner abide certain rules during balance Under systems, automatically portion term. others, discretionary action evaluates array makes prediction ready society. 13 To accomplish those allowed leave early subjected duration terms. These restrict activities substantially beyond ordinary imposed citizen. Typically, parolees forbidden use liquor associations correspondence categories undesirable persons. seek permission engaging activities, changing living quarters, marrying, acquiring vehicle, travling community, incurring substantial indebtedness. regularly whom assigned sometimes periodic reports activities. Arluke, A Summary Rules—Thirteen Years Later, 15 Crime & Delin. 267, 272—273 (1969). 14 system designed assist offer them guidance. serve dual purpose; prohibit, absolutely conditionally, behavior deemed dangerous restoration normal And through requirement reporting seeking guidance doing things, provided advise him. combination puts position can try guide development.3 enforcement leverage supports derives return out fails rules. practice, every leads will counseled ordinarily take steps unless thinks serious continuing so indicate adjusting cannot counted avoid antisocial activity.4 broad inherent quite vague conditions, typical 'undesirable' correspondence. Cf. Arciniega Freeman, 404 4, 22, 30 126 (1971). Yet unusual phenomenon, affecting few parolees. estimated 35%—45% prison.5 Sometimes occurs when accused crime; preferred new prosecution procedural ease recommitting lesser State.6 16 Implicit system's notion long abides step wholly retrospective factual question: one Only determined second arise: taken protect improve chances rehabilitation? relatively simple; complex. application expertise ability live committing acts. This decision, too, depends facts, know committed accurately how were. step, deciding do once identified, purely predictive discretionary. 17 usually receives 'served' parole.7 Thus, face potential imprisonment. II 18 begin proposition apply (1967). arises prosecution, including imposition Supervision directly buy agency, arm executive. deprives individual, absolute citizen entitled, conditional dependent observance special restrictions. turn, therefore, general As Blackmun recently, 'this now rejected concept constitutional turn governmental benefit characterized 'right' 'privilege." Graham Richardson, 403 365, 374, 91 1848, 1853, 29 534 Whether protections extent 'condemned suffer grievous loss.' Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 168, 71 624, 646, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), quoted Goldberg Kelly, 397 263, 90 1011, 1018, 25 287 (1970). merely 'weight' interest, nature interest contemplation 'liberty property' language Amendment. Fuentes Shevin, 407 67, 1983, 32 556 (1972). Once applies, remains due. said others citation flexible calls particular demands. '(C)onsideration procedures set circumstances precise government well private affected action.' Cafeteria Restaurant Workers Union McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). mean judges relationships. flexibility scope due; recognition situations calling safeguards same kind procedure. 20 examination continued liberty. enables wide range things open persons never crime. released evaluation promise able responsible, self-reliant person. Subject gainfully employed free family friends form enduring attachments life. property subjects applicable citizens, very different confinement prison.8 number life faced revocation.9 least implicit up conditions. cases, faces lengthy incarceration revoked. 21 see, although indeterminate, includes core unqualified inflicts 'grievous loss' others. hardly useful deal problem terms 'privilege.' By whatever valuable seen orderly process, however informal. 22 Turning due, we several. crime people. That justifies imposing extensive Release made risk additional Given conviction proper overwhelming burden trial failed 23 Yet, guarantees. Although formally described argument summary treatment necessary group potentially disruptive actual custody. Nor persuaded totally matter administratively intolerable. simple discretion. Serious studies suggested fair result fewer parole.10 24 aspect reached appropriate breached stake Society chance restoring law. having erroneous revoke breach See People ex rel. Menechino 27 N.Y.2d 376, 379, n. 2, 318 N.Y.S.2d 449, 450, 267 N.E.2d 238, 239, (1971) (parole less picture facts). treating basic fairness: revocations enhance rehabilitation avoiding reactions arbitrariness.11 factors, most guarantees all.12 What needed structured assure informed accurate knowledge behavior. III 26 bearing mind furthered effective analyzing see stages Arrest Parolee Preliminary Hearing. detained, There typically lag eventual distant institution, seem minimal convenient while fresh sources available. Hyser Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 225 (1963). Such 'preliminary hearing' acts constitute U.S., 267—271, 1020—1022, 287. 28 our view, exists someone case. unfair assume supervising recommends arrest. bears hostility destroys neutrality; realistically sense officer.13 However, assumptions way conclude uninvolved preliminary believing violated. recommendations always objectivity evaluating them.14 Kelly unnecessary impugn motives case-worker independent decisionmaker examine granting traditionally handled officers. Goldberg, pointedly benefits officer; initially dealing sufficient, context, certainly choose perform function. With violation. alleged. appear speak own behalf; bring letters, documents, request available questioning presence. determines informant harm identity disclosed, confrontation cross-examination. 31 duty summary, digest, responses substance documents position. Based him, hold sufficient warrant detention pending 'the maker . .' remembered 'formal findings conclusions law.' 271, S.Ct., 1022. No served formalism process; informality lessen utility reducing error. desired authority. determining cause; lead contested consideration show, can, or, did, mitigation suggest tendered lapse months, unreasonable. write code procedure; responsibility each State. Most done legislation, grounds.15 task limited They include emphasize thought equate sense. narrow inquiry; enough consider affidavits, material admissible trial. 34 reach decide assistance retained counsel appointed indigent.16 35 create inflexible structure procedures. above, future impose great Control delaying tactics abuses occur. Obviously relitigate issues forums, presented 36 peculiar case, absence adequate record, ends justice best remanding consolidated directions actually followed Board, contend, grounds standards, matter. meet standards laid down dispose claims cases. 37 reverse remand opinion. 38 Reversed 39 BRENNAN, concurring result. 40 I agree consistently Clause, afforded, first, and, second, has, fact, For evidence, corss-examine witnesses, witness exposed harm. Moreover, impartial, proceedings, decisionmaker's forth indicating upon. Because procedures, remanded orders. 41 indigent. (1970), nonetheless plainly dictates 'must attorney desires.' Id., 270, there, 'Counsel delineate issues, contentions manner, cross-examination, generally safeguard of' client. 270—271, 1021 precedents furnished 42 DOUGLAS, dissenting part. 43 Each forgery. Somewhat year later About six local week, led know, question, challenge formed behalf testimony 44 challenged relief. Their appeals which, sitting en banc, affirmed four-to-three vote, 942. petition writ certiorari, 999, 568, 552, conflict below Hahn Burke, 430 100, decided Seventh Circuit. 45 parole1 paroled. paroled, supervision director division corrections Department Social Services, who, supervises agents. agents recommend it. Act 'shall subject, custody institution' paroled.2 put back Curtis Bennett, 256 1164, 131 N.W.2d 1; urged since like probation, summarily revoked.3 Escoe Zerbst, 295 490, 492—493, 55 818, 819, 79 1566; Ughbanks Armstrong, 208 481, 372, 52 582. But discarded right-privilege distinction. See, e.g., 534; Bell Burson, 402 535, 539, 1586, 1589, 90; Pickering Education, 391 563, 1731, 1734, 811; cf. Van Alstyne, Demise Right-Privilege Distinction Constitutional Law, Harv.L.Rev. 1439 46 Wilson, 150, Pet. 161, 'pardon deed.' conferred gives degree associated interests. 47 287, payments recipient evidentiary Speaking welfare said: 48 'Their adjudicates rights. answered 'privilege' 'right." Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 627 6, 89 1322, 1327, (22 600) Relevant restraints withdrawal disqualification unemployment compensation, Sherbert Verner, 374 398, 83 1790, 965 (1963); tax exemption, Speiser Randall, 357 513, 78 1332, 1460 (1958); discharge employment, Slochower Higher 350 551, 76 637, 692 (1956). afforded influenced loss,' 647, recipient's loss outweighs adjudication. 1748—1749, (1961), 'consideration Hannah Larche, 363 420, 440, 442, 80 1502, 1513, 1514, 1307 (1960).' 262—263, 1017—1018. 49 modern concepts penology, paroling rehabilitative aim philosophy. objective community (1968); Parole: Critique Penal Foundations Conditions, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 702 Comment, 72 Yale L.J. 368 (1962); Baine Beckstead, Utah 2d 347 P.2d 554 (1959). status enjoys reviewed Kelly. conditioned perhaps leaving locality. Violations technical, unknowingly, fleeting consequence.4 126; Cohen, Process, Equal Protection Proceedings, U.Colo.L.Rev. 197, 229 should, fairness explain. Rather, Iowa's rule proceeds ipse dixit agent; word alone already charges true. Words explanation transform trivia looms 50 '(T)here tremendous consequences ceremony counsel, reasons.' Kent States, 383 541, 554, 86 1045, 1053, 84 (1966). 51 Parole,6 originally conceived function, largely boards formulating 'Often moralistic, oppressive parolee.' R. Dawson, Sentencing 306 drawn 'to cover contingency might occur,' 307, maximize 'control officer.' Ibid. commonly mere suspicion 366—367. vests counseling parolee—referring psychiatric specialized therapy narcotic addicts alcoholics. 321. Treatment common course. 322—323. Counseling extending job. 324 seq. 53 prisoner, protection, process.7 federal level, construction regulations presents questions cognizance. 126. statutes alone, save implicate Constitution event Supremacy controls. 54 concerns Procedural following. offense, jail.8 hearing.9 charge 'there danger combining functions judge advocate.' Jones Rivers, 338 862, 877 (CA4 1964) (Sobeloff, concurring). counsel.10 Hewett North Carolina, 415 1316, 1322—1325 1969); Combs LaVallee, App.Div.2d 286 600 Perry Williard, 247 Or. 145, 427 1020 Supreme Oregon 'A absent inherently unsatisfactory unfair. Counsel brought out, insubstantial allegations discounted, irrelevancies eliminated.' 148, P.2d, 135, 257, 336. informer may, Roviaro 353 53, 77 623, 639, illustrates, ascertainment truth. results go board—or authorized agency—for action, voluntary admission 57 stability Arbitrary actions impede impair aspects penology. 'Notice case,' Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 378, 780, 786, 113, rudiments restore faith run many, few, caprice govern affairs men.11 58 prescribe formula management problems. sit ombudsman, telling follow. far concerned:12 59 (1) officer—whatever duties various statutes—in appears agent prosecutor police; qualified (2) including, example, confronted accusers 61 (3) freedom until known agency—acts.13 62 judgments light defined herein, Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 85 1187, (1965). 540 ordered recently Petitioners' Reply Brief 7, suggesting objectively evaluate Warren, Probation System Criminal Justice, Fed.Prob. (Sept. 1955); Annual Report, Ohio Adult Authority 1964/65, pp. 13—14; Legal 702, 705—707 Observations Administration Parole, 698, 699—700 President's Commission Law Enforcement Task Force Report: Corrections rate administrators deliberately err borderline Brewer, 956—954, (CA8 1971) (Lay, dissenting); Rose Haskins, 388 91, 104 (CA6 1968) (Celebrezze, dissenting). Delinquency 271 (1969); 705, 733 'It sophistic attach greater importance person's justifiable reliance maintaining release, anticipation hope freedom.' Bey Connecticut 1079, 1086 (CA2 1971). Murray Page, 429 1359 (CA10 1970) eight years; remaining original term). Sklar, Practice Hearings, J.Crim.L.C. P.S. 175, 194 (1964) (no decrease Michigan, rights); 102 dissenting) (cost change economic motivation). 83, 15, infra. written, 'Before principles fundamental away accusation (The parolee) possessed forfeited reason grant.' Chase 456 590, 594 (Okl.Crim.App.1969). 704—706 (1970) adopt model social worker adjunct police, exhibit lack punitive orientation). bad motivation. 'Parole human, possible friction agent's judgment.' Attorney General's Survey Procedures: 246 (1939). Very provide Thirty type Ala.Code, Tit. 42, § (1959); Alaska Stat. 33.15.220 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 31—417 (1956); Ark.Stat.Ann. 43—2810 (Supp.1971); Del.Code Ann., 4352 (Supp.1970); Fla.Stat.Ann. 947.23(1) (Supp.1972); Ga.Code Ann. 77—519 Haw.Rev.Stat. 353—66 Idaho Code §§ 20—229, 20—229A Ill.Ann.Stat., c. 108, 204(e), 207 Ind.Ann.Stat. 13—1611 (Supp.1972), IC 1971, 11—1—1—11; Kan.Stat.Ann. 22—3721 (1971); Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann 439.330(1)(e) La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:574.9 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., 34, 1675 (Supp.1970 1971); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 41, 117 Mich.Comp.Laws 791.240a, Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.2310(1) Miss.Code 4004—13 Mo.Ann.Stat. 549.265 Mont.Rev.Codes 94—9838, 94—9835 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 607:46 (1955); N.M.Stat.Ann. 41—17—28 (1972); N.Y.Correction McKinney's Consol.Laws, 43, 212, subd. N.D.Cent.Code 12—59—15 Pa.Stat.Ann., 61, 331.21a(b) (1964); Tenn.Code 40—3619 Vernon's Ann.Tex.Code Crim.Proc., 42.12, (1966); Vt.Stat.Ann., 28, 1081(b) (1970); Wash.Rev.Code 9.95.120 9.95.126 W.Va.Code 62—12—19 (1966.) Decisions hearings. Hutchison Patterson, F.Supp. 433 (Colo.1967) (approving regulations); 1079 (requiring hearings); Holmes, 109 N.J.Super. 180, 262 A.2d 725 590 (Okl.Crim.App.1969); Bearden South 1090 Goolsby Gagnon, 322 460 (ED Wis. legal Model 305.15(1) (Proposed Official Draft 1962) '(t)he institutional staff render aid preparation permitted counsel.' 247.5 part: 'The inmates penal institutions qualify thereafter placed inmate department services. insure parole.' 247.9 'All remain, warden superintendent chief paroled.' (the right-privilege) theory frequent disposition just institution. bear little resemblance episodic mercy forgiving sovereign. supervised sign increasing popularity. Seen light, becomes hundreds thousands daily processed regulated agencies. come depend enmeshed raised offenders, outworn cliche present-day realities.' F. Challenge Corrections: Implications Manpower Training (Joint Correctional 1969). listed 943 944, nn. discussion British dispenses 120 U.Pa.L.Rev. 282, 311—312 limiting 313—324, 326—339. deprivations Communist nations, Shao-chuan Leng, China (1967); P. Tang, Today (2d ed. 1961); Hazard, Communists 121—126 used lieu term.' Clegg, (1964). 9, 558; 131, 600, 603. 348—358 Judge Skelly Wright 291, 225, (1963) (concurring part): 'Where committed, stemming Where serious, If, course, willfully itself justify issuance warrant.' Accord, re Tucker, Cal.3d 171, 199 200, Cal.Rptr. 761, 486 657, 676 (Tobriner, connection Greene 360 474, 496—497, 1400, 1413, 1377: 'Certain remained immutable jurisprudence. where seriously injures reasonableness findings, prove Government's disclosed untrue. While consists memory faulty perjurers motivated malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, jealousy. formalized ancient roots. expression Sixth enjoy him.' zealous erosion. spoken types regulatory scrutiny.' (Citations omitted.) American Bar Association Project Standards Providing Defense Services (Approved 1968); 301.4, 1962); experience Michigan 355. violators retains counsel. protected 354. ask five year, largest single 10. 1937. typical, picked 352 353. contrast, California secretive behind closed doors behalf. Dyke, Hearings California: Right Counsel, Calif.L.Rev. 1215 (1968) (federal procedures). Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae contains Appendix statute not. All nine trial-type representation except course offense governed Manual 279 (3d 1966) that: 'To imprisonment, uncontrolled protections, remedies. Until fully developed, vitally fields maintained norms remedies sorts likely develop men power fellows relationships mechanical arbitrary.' hearings: 'As practicable causing (to be) warrant, representative. aware ample refute comment extenuating circumstances. reinstatement reparole purpose.' 130. p. agreement instance. sets approved House Delegates.'

Category: 3