Does the exclusionary rule apply to probation revocation hearings?

Appellant argues that even if the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings, due process demands that the Harvey-Madden rule should operate in probation revocation hearings because it [199 Cal.App.3d 813] implements his right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. ⁴ However, appellant's contention fails to take into account the purpose of these rights. Although both confrontation and cross-examination are deemed essential to a fair trial, (Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297) a probation revocation is not a trial where guilt or innocence is determined. ( In re Coughlin, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 57, 127 Cal.Rptr. 337, 545 P.2d 249.) Furthermore, cross-examination "helps assure 'accuracy of the truth-determining process.' " ( Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 410 U.S. at p. 295, 93 S.Ct. at p. 1046, citations omitted.) There is no question about the accuracy of the trial court's determination: It is certain the police found cocaine on appellant's person and possession of cocaine provides a sufficient ground for revoking probation. (Pen.Code, 1203.2.)