Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 420

524US2

Unit: $U90

[09-15-00 14:33:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 357 (1998)

375

Souter, J., dissenting

As against this picture of the police, the Court paints the
parole ofﬁcer as a ﬁgure more nearly immune to such com-
petitive zeal. As the Court describes him, the parole ofﬁcer
is interested less in catching a parole violator than in making
sure that the parolee continues to go straight, since “ ‘realis-
tically the failure of the parolee is in a sense a failure for his
supervising ofﬁcer.’ ” Ante, at 368 (quoting Morrissey v.
Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 485–486 (1972)). This view of the pa-
role ofﬁcer suffers, however, from its selectiveness. Parole
ofﬁcers wear several hats; while they are indeed the parol-
ees’ counselors and social workers, they also “often serve
as both prosecutors and law enforcement ofﬁcials in their
relationship with probationers and parolees.” N. Cohen &
J. Gobert, Law of Probation and Parole § 11.04, p. 533 (1983);
see also Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 432 (1984) (pro-
bation ofﬁcer “is a peace ofﬁcer, and as such is allied, to a
greater or lesser extent, with his fellow peace ofﬁcers” (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted)); T. Wile, Pennsylvania Law
of Probation and Parole § 5.12, p. 88 (1993) (parole ofﬁcers
“act in various capacities, supervisor, social worker, advo-
cate, police ofﬁcer, investigator and advisor, to the offenders
under their supervision”).
Indeed, a parole ofﬁcer’s obliga-
tion to petition for revocation when a parolee goes bad, see
Cohen & Gobert, supra, § 11.04, at 533, is presumably the
basis for the legal rule in Pennsylvania that “state parole
agents are considered police ofﬁcers with respect to the of-
fenders under their jurisdiction,” Wile, supra, § 5.12, at 89.
Once, in fact, the ofﬁcer has turned from counselor to ad-
versary, there is every reason to expect at least as much
competitive zeal from him as from a regular police ofﬁcer.
See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, 785 (1973) (“[A]n ex-
clusive focus on the benevolent attitudes of those who admin-
ister the probation/parole system when it is working success-
fully obscures the modiﬁcation in attitude which is likely to
take place once the ofﬁcer has decided to recommend revoca-
If he fails to respond to his parolee’s further crimi-
tion”).