Describe the significant court cases that have had an impact on the practice of probation and parole.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

• Escoe v. Zerbst: Argued that the revocation of probation without notice or hearing was permissible.
• Mempa v. Rhay: Notice and a hearing are required before probation may be revoked and probationers should have the opportunity for representation by counsel.
• Morrissey v. Brewer: Procedural safeguards are required at parole revocation hearings.
• Gagnon v. Scarpelli: Extended the safeguards identified in Morrissey v. Brewer to probationers.
• Greenholtz v. Nebraska: Established that parole boards do not have to specify the evidence used in deciding to deny parole.
• Bearden v. Georgia: Established that probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution if it cannot be shown that the defendant is responsible for the failure.
• Minnesota v. Murphy: States that incriminating statements to a probation officer may be used as evidence if the probationer does not specify a right against self-incrimination.
• Griffin v. Wisconsin: The Supreme Court held that probation officers may conduct a search of a probationer’s residence without a warrant or probable cause.
• Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott: The Griffin decision was applied to parolees.
• U.S. v. Knights: Extended the warrantless search authority reserved for probation and parole officers to the police when supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by the conditions of probation.
• Samson v. California: Police officers may conduct warrantless searches of individuals subject to parole search conditions.