The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision July 3 affirming due process protections in probation revocation proceedings in *State ex rel. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections v. Brian Hayes*. The court upheld a Division of Hearings and Appeals administrator's decision declining to revoke a probationer's supervision based on insufficient justification for using hearsay evidence.
The case originated when the Wisconsin Department of Corrections sought to revoke Keyo Sellers's probation in March 2022, alleging five violations of his supervision conditions. Sellers had been convicted of a drug offense in February 2019 and was subsequently placed on probation.
During the revocation proceedings, an administrative law judge initially determined that Sellers's probation should be revoked. However, Division of Hearings and Appeals administrator Brian Hayes reversed that decision, finding that the revocation improperly relied on hearsay evidence without establishing the required good cause to overcome Sellers's constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses.
The Department of Corrections challenged Hayes's decision, arguing that the administrator erred by ignoring non-hearsay evidence that supported revocation. DOC further contended that sufficient good cause existed in the record to justify excluding hearsay testimony, even when it violated the probationer's confrontation rights.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the majority opinion for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, joined by Chief Justice Karofsky and Justices Dallet, Hagedorn, and Protasiewicz. The court applied the certiorari standard of review, which requires deference to administrative decisions that are supported by substantial evidence and made according to law.
Under this deferential standard, the court concluded that Administrator Hayes's decision must be upheld. The majority found that substantial evidence supported the administrator's determination that good cause had not been established to overcome Sellers's due process right to confront witnesses against him.
The ruling reinforces important procedural safeguards in Wisconsin's probation system. While probation revocation proceedings are administrative rather than criminal in nature, probationers retain certain due process rights, including the right to confront adverse witnesses under specific circumstances.
The decision establishes that even when some non-hearsay evidence may support revocation, administrators must carefully evaluate whether sufficient good cause exists to admit hearsay testimony that would otherwise violate a probationer's confrontation rights. This balancing test ensures that the efficiency of administrative proceedings does not come at the expense of fundamental fairness.
Justice Ziegler filed a separate concurring opinion, while Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley authored a dissenting opinion, though the specific reasoning of these additional opinions was not detailed in the available materials.
The case reflects the ongoing tension between administrative efficiency and due process protections in the criminal justice system. Probation revocation proceedings handle thousands of cases annually, making streamlined procedures important for system functionality. However, the consequences of revocation can be severe, including imprisonment, making procedural protections essential.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision may influence how other states approach similar due process questions in probation proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that while hearsay evidence may sometimes be permissible in administrative contexts, its use must be justified by specific circumstances that constitute good cause.
For probation officers and administrators, the decision provides guidance on the evidentiary standards required when seeking revocation. The ruling suggests that relying primarily on hearsay evidence without establishing compelling reasons for its necessity may result in unsuccessful revocation attempts.
The case also highlights the role of Division of Hearings and Appeals administrators as independent reviewers of initial ALJ determinations. The Wisconsin system allows these administrators to reverse initial decisions when they determine that proper procedures were not followed or that insufficient evidence supports the proposed action.
Legal practitioners representing probationers can point to this decision as support for challenging revocation proceedings that rely heavily on hearsay evidence without adequate justification. The ruling reinforces that even in administrative proceedings, constitutional protections retain significant force.
The decision comes as Wisconsin and other states continue to examine their probation and parole systems, with growing attention to both public safety concerns and individual rights. The balance between these competing interests often plays out in cases like *Hayes*, where procedural protections can determine whether individuals face continued supervision or return to incarceration.
Moving forward, the *Hayes* decision will likely be cited in future probation revocation proceedings throughout Wisconsin as both prosecutors and defense counsel navigate the requirements for using hearsay evidence while respecting confrontation rights in administrative settings.