The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977):
The Boykin protections having been provided at the time of the plea and prior to the initiation of the probation relationship, there is no due process requirement to provide those protections at each probation revocation hearing. Indeed, if we so held, the next logical step would be to require similar formalities at each interview with the probation officer because information received there could be used at a subsequent hearing. Cf. United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1975). Such a result would not only be unnecessary to protect probationers' rights but would militate against the type of probation officer-probationer relationship which can best effectuate rehabilitation. 4
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.