Opinion ID: 1311169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of secretary's statement.

Text: Mr. Ramaker's counsel claims that, when the secretary disagreed with the hearing examiner, he did not adequately set forth the evidence which he relied on and the reasons which he had for revoking probation. Cases relied upon by Mr. Ramaker are inapplicable to probation revocation proceedings, since they relate only to proceedings under ch. 227 and ch. 102, Stats. Appleton v. ILHR Department (1975), 67 Wis. 2d 162, 226 N. W. 2d 497; Transamerica Ins. Co. v. ILHR Department (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 272, 195 N. W. 2d 656. However, as Mr. Ramaker points out, Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, at p. 489, also requires a written statement by the Department as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole. When the secretary revokes probation, in disagreement with his hearing examiner, he must provide a statement of the evidence which he relied upon and the reasons he has for revoking probation. [4] Contrary to Mr. Ramaker's claim, this requirement was met by the secretary. In a memo accompanying the revocation order the secretary stated as follows: [The July 27 incident], cited by the Bureau in its allegations, could reasonably be seen as a violation of the special condition relating to `associating with minors.' In addition, the court order requiring outpatient care at the Sheboygan County Mental Health Center (See p. 4 of synopsis) is not considered feasible by the Center staff (see pp. 4 and 6). Supervision and enforcement of the conditions of probation are impossible in light of the above and a court review is considered to be essential. While the secretary's memo is brief, it does refer to the evidence relied on and to the reasons for revoking Mr. Ramaker's probation. Mr. Ramaker's right to due process was thus not violated. However, effective judicial review of probation revocation, where the secretary disagrees with the hearing examiner, would be facilitated by a more detailed explanation of the grounds of disagreement. By the Court. The orders of March 13, 1975, and April 15, 1975, are affirmed.