Full constitutional rights do not apply to probation revocation hearing and, therefore, would not apply at a termination from Drug Court hearing

State v. Walker

State v. Walker, (Wash: Court of Appeals, 2nd Div. 2023 UNPUBLISHED)

Defendant was not denied due process, when he was not permitted to call witnesses at revocation hearing, because he admitted he was terminated from program that was part of his drug court contract and he was allowed to testify and request that he receive drug court without the program contract condition.

State v. Watson

State v. Watson, No. M2015-00108-CCA-R3-CD., (Tenn. Court of Criminal Appeals 2016

Drug court judge’s decision to leave the termination decision to team was an abdication of responsibility and a violation of due process Citing Tennessee v. Stewart,   No. M2008-00474-CCA-R3-CD Filed  October 6, 2008 Unpublished Opinion.

People, In Interest of AKA-C

PEOPLE, IN INTEREST OF AKA-C., 2017 SD 38 (South Dakota Supreme Court 2017)

In termination hearing, Court did not improperly consider evidence adduced in mother’s drug court status hearings in violation of statute.

Maggard v. Commonwealth , Not Selected for Publication  , (Ky. App., 2015)

No due process violation when defendant terminated from drug court based upon certification of violations, prepared by a drug court employee, alleging Maggard had absconded from the Fayette County Drug Court Program; had dirty and/or diluted urine screens on four dates; six missed urine screens; and four other events of note: not having a meeting sheet; missing curfew; dishonesty-not maintaining employment; and her inability to produce a sample.  Defendant had a hearing and had the ability to call witnesses.  The fact that the court relied on hearsay did not constitute a due process violation citing US Supreme Court cases Morrissey and Gagnon.

State v. Tiedeken

State v. Tiedeken, Not Selected for Publication  (N.J. Super. App. Div., 2015)

The New Jersey  Drug Court Manual is recognized as an authoritative source for the operation of the Drug Court program.

Withers v. State

Withers v. State, 48A02-1403-CR-130 (Ind. App. 8-26-2014)

Drug court did not violate due process by taking judicial notice of  its own records including mental health treatment records in drug court revocation proceeding.

State v. Nichelin

State v. Nichelin, 181 Wn. App. 1024 (2014)

Because the record demonstrates that the trial court had ample basis to find that Kratom is a mood-altering substance by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing, and because the trial court explicitly relied on that evidence, Nichelin fails to establish a violation of his right to due process.

Gibson v. Kentucky, No. 2011-CA-001368-MR.,Court of Appeals of Kentucky, Rendered: January 18, 2013.

Finding that the defendant was accorded due process in his termination from drug court, the appellate court observed the following to be a proper trial court consideration in termination: “Gibson’s unwillingness or inability to adopt basic tenants of Drug Court, such as honesty, constituted continued “addict thinking” and reflected negatively on Gibson’s ability to remain compliant and crime-free within the community.

Butler v. Indiana

Butler v. Indiana, No. 34A05-1109-CR-447 (Unpublished 4/11/12)

Evidentiary proof at drug court termination did not constitute due process violation.

Tennessee v. Stewart

Tennessee v. Stewart, No. M2008-00474-CCA-R3-CD – Filed October 6, 2008 Unpublished Opinion

Drug court judge’s decision to leave the termination decision to team was an abdication of responsibility and a violation of due process.

People v. Joseph

People v. Joseph, 785 N.Y.S.2d 292, 291 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

In an appeal involving a drug court, a five part test was adopted to determine whether the evidence supporting termination from a treatment program was sufficiently reliable to meet due process requirements adopting Torres v. Berbary, 340 F.3d 63, 63 (2d Cir. 2003)

State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson, 679 N.W.2d 169, 174 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)

Rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation hearing.

State v. Foster

State v. Foster, 782 A.2d 98, 98 (Conn. 2001)

4th Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

State v. Scarlet

State v. Scarlet, 800 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2001)

4th Amendment exclusionary rule applies at probation revocation proceeding.

United States v. Gravina

United States v. Gravina, 906 F. Supp. 50, 53-54 (D. Mass. 1995)

4th Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

People v. Harrison

People v. Harrison, 771 P.2d 23, 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989)

Court explained that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, unless there is an allegation of a new crime.. If there is an allegation of a new crime, and the defendant has not been convicted, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Minnesota v. Murphy

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426-436 (1985)

Fifth Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

United States v. Mackinzie

United States v. Mackinzie, 601 F.2d 221, 221 (5th Cir. 1979)

Miranda not apply to probation revocation proceedings.