Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Burkholder

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1984No. 83-1959Published

1DissentHolmes, J.

While the defendant is entitled to certain procedural due process rights at a probation revocation hearing, in my view he is not entitled to the benefits of the exclusionary rule. Therefore, I dissent.

The revocation of probation is not recognized as a part of a criminal prosecution. Thus, the alleged violator is not entitled to all of the constitutional guarantees available to one who stands charged with a criminal offense. Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S. 778 [71 O.O.2d 279]; Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471. Based on this premise, the vast majority of reported cases have held…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Bernhardt v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1974
  5. United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Sperling, Relator-Appellant v. Walter v. Fitzpatrick, Warden, West Street House of DetentionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API