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and a violation of due process Citing Tennessee v. Stewart,   No. M2008-00474-CCA-R3-CD Filed  October 6, 2008 Unpublished Opinion.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., 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.

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, 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, 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.

Butler v. Indiana, No. 34A05-1109-CR-447 (Unpublished 4/11/12)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Tennessee v. Stewart, No. M2008-00474-CCA-R3-CD – Filed October 6, 2008 Unpublished Opinion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, 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, 679 N.W.2d 169, 174 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)

Rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation hearing.

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

4th Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

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

4th Amendment exclusionary rule applies at probation revocation proceeding.

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

4th Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

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

Fifth Amendment not apply to probation revocation proceedings.

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

Miranda not apply to probation revocation proceedings.