C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 2—PAROLE, RELEASE, SUPERVISION AND RECOMMITMENT OF PRISONERS, YOUTH OFFENDERS, AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS › Subpart A—United States Code Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.48

Revocation: Preliminary interview

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Interviewing officer. A parolee who is retaken on a warrant issued by a Commissioner shall be given a preliminary interview by an official designated by the Regional Commissioner to enable the Commission to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated his parole as charged, and if so, whether a revocation hearing should be conducted. The official designated to conduct the preliminary interview may be a U.S. Probation Officer in the district where the prisoner is confined, provided he is not the officer who recommended that the warrant be issued.

(b) Notice and opportunity to postpone interview. At the beginning of the preliminary interview, the interviewing officer shall ascertain that the Warrant Application has been given to the parolee as required by § 2.46(b), and shall advise the parolee that he may have the preliminary interview postponed in order to obtain representation by an attorney or arrange for the attendance of witnesses. The parolee shall also be advised that if he cannot afford to retain an attorney he may apply to a U.S. District Court for appointment of counsel to represent him at the preliminary interview and the revocation hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A. In addition, the parolee may request the Commission to obtain the presence of persons who have given information upon which revocation may be based. Such adverse witnesses shall be requested to attend the preliminary interview unless the parolee admits a violation or has been convicted of a new offense while on supervision or unless the interviewing officer finds good cause for their non-attendance. Pursuant to § 2.51 a subpoena may issue for the appearance of adverse witnesses or the production of documents.

(c) Review of the charges. At the preliminary interview, the interviewing officer shall review the violation charges with the parolee, apprise the parolee of the evidence which has been presented to the Commission, receive the statements of witnesses and documentary evidence on behalf of the parolee, and allow cross-examination of those witnesses in attendance. Disclosure of the evidence presented to the Commission shall be made pursuant to § 2.50(d).

(d) At the conclusion of the preliminary interview, the interviewing officer shall inform the parolee of his recommended decision as to whether there is probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated the conditions of his release, and shall submit to the Commission a digest of the interview together with his recommended decision.

(1) If the interviewing officer's recommended decision is that no probable cause may be found to believe that the parolee has violated the conditions of his release, the responsible Regional Commissioner shall review such recommended decision and notify the parolee of his final decision concerning probable cause as expeditiously as possible following receipt of the interviewing officer's digest. A decision to release the parolee shall be implemented without delay.

(2) If the interviewing officer's recommended decision is that probable cause may be found to believe that the parolee has violated a condition (or conditions) of his release, the responsible Regional Commissioner shall notify the parolee of his final decision concerning probable cause within 21 days of the date of the preliminary interview.

(3) Notice to the parolee of any final decision of a Regional Commissioner finding probable cause and ordering a revocation hearing shall state the charges upon which probable cause has been found and the evidence relied upon.

(e) Release notwithstanding probable cause. If the Commission finds probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated the conditions of his release, reinstatement to supervision or release pending further proceeding may nonetheless be ordered if it is determined that:

(1) Continuation of revocation proceedings is not warranted despite the violations found; or

(2) Incarceration pending further revocation proceedings is not warranted by the alleged frequency or seriousness of such violation or violations, and that the parolee is not likely to fail to appear for further proceedings, and that the parolee does not constitute a danger to himself or others.

(f) Conviction as probable cause. Conviction of a Federal, State, or local crime committed subsequent to release by a parolee shall constitute probable cause for the purposes of this section and no preliminary interview shall be conducted unless otherwise ordered by the Regional Commissioner.

(g) Local revocation hearing. A postponed preliminary interview may be conducted as a local revocation hearing by an examiner panel or other interviewing officer designated by the Regional Commissioner provided that the parolee has been advised that the postponed preliminary interview will constitute his final revocation hearing.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 3408, 3409, Jan. 16, 1979; 46 FR 42842, Aug. 25, 1981; 47 FR 25735, June 15, 1982]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976). · cites it 2× “); see 28 CFR § 2.48 (f) (1976). [8] Congress has provided a statutory right to a parole revocation hearing along Morrissey lines even where the parolee "knowingly and intelligently admits violation" of the terms of his parole, or has been convicted of a crime committed while on…”
Dennis Luther v. Vincent Molina, 627 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (d). If probable cause is found, § 4214(a)(l)(A)(i-iv) states that the Commission: “may restore any parolee to parole supervision if: (i) continuation of revocation proceedings is not warranted; or (ii) incarceration of the parolee pending further revocation…”
Armando John Vargas v. United States Parole Comm'n, 865 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Commission sent a probable cause letter, dated January 29, 1986, to appellant pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (d) (1987). Appellant contends that he did not see this letter until April 1988 while he was preparing this appeal.”
Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2010). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 . In making this determination, the parole board relied on the dismissed charges relating to attempted rape as well as the new assault conviction.”
United States Ex Rel. Carrasquillo v. Thomas, 527 F. Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (a). 3 . 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (d)(2).”
John Larry Ray v. Patricia Pickett, J. Alan MacDoniel U.S. Parole Comm'r, 734 F.2d 370 (8th Cir. 1984). “28 C.F.R. § 2.48 . If the interviewing officer finds that there is probable cause for the warrant to issue and a revocation hearing is ordered, the parolee is afforded a revocation hearing before a hearing examiner or examiner panel, at which the parolee may present witnesses…”
William H. Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons A.F. Beeler, 989 F.2d 420 (10th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 4214 (a)(1)(A); see also 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (a) (purpose of preliminary interview is to “determine if there is probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated his parole as charged, and if so, whether a revocation hearing should be conducted”).”
Patton v. Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156 (M.D. Penn. 1979). “Rather, what constitutes a conviction for purposes of the federal parole statute is a matter of federal law, which appears to recognize that what constitutes a conviction “varies according to the purpose for which its definition is sought.”
Bufford McDonald v. New Mexico Parole Bd., 955 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1991). “§ 4214 (b)(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (f)); see also Mack v. McCune, 551 F.”
Earl J. Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1990). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.48 (f) (1988). Thus, he was not entitled to a preliminary interview before the execution of the parole violator warrant.”
United States v. Brent Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 2012). “28 C.F.R. § 2.48 . In this capacity, probation officers manage defendants under their supervision largely without the involvement of the judge, who does not normally review the probation officer’s monthly reports, financial statements, and other paperwork unless there is a…”
Toomey v. Young, 442 F. Supp. 387 (D. Conn. 1977). “The issue therefore is whether or not the Commission was obligated to execute the warrant sooner than it did.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.48(b) — 1 case
Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D. Maryland 1998).
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.48(f) — 1 case
Wasylak v. Thornberg, 744 F. Supp. 387 (D.N.H. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.