Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Morrissey v. Brewer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureParole RevocationDue Processparoleparole revocationdue processFourteenth Amendmentconditional liberty

Facts

Morrissey and Booher were Iowa parolees who were arrested at the direction of their parole officers for alleged parole violations and jailed locally. In each case, the Iowa Board of Parole revoked parole based on the parole officer's written report and returned the parolee to the state penitentiary; each petitioner asserted he received no hearing before revocation. The reports alleged various violations such as use of assumed names, unauthorized operation of vehicles, territorial violations, and failure to comply with reporting or employment conditions. Although respondents later asserted in this Court that post-revocation hearings had occurred, the Court treated the case on the record made below, which did not show such hearings.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to provide a parolee with an opportunity to be heard before revoking parole? If so, what minimum procedures are constitutionally required in parole revocation proceedings?

Rule

Revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution, so the full panoply of criminal-trial rights does not apply. But because parolee liberty is a protected conditional liberty within the Fourteenth Amendment, due process requires an orderly, informal two-stage process: (1) a prompt preliminary hearing near the place of arrest to determine whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe a parole violation occurred, conducted by a person not directly involved in the case; and (2) a final revocation hearing within a reasonable time before a neutral and detached hearing body, with minimum safeguards including written notice of claimed violations, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and documents, confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses unless good cause exists to deny it, and a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for revocation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Jamal Ortiz was released on parole in Columbus, Ohio, after serving part of a burglary sentence. Six months later, his parole officer had him arrested for allegedly missing meetings and changing apartments without approval, and the state argued no hearing was constitutionally required because parole is only a privilege the state may withdraw at will.

Which is the best response to Jamal's due process claim?

Explanation. The majority held that parole revocation is not part of a criminal prosecution, so the full panoply of trial rights does not apply. But a parolee's conditional liberty falls within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its termination inflicts a grievous loss. Therefore, some orderly due process is required before parole may be finally revoked.