Justice Lester Adler

Ciccone alleged DOCCS failed to establish probable cause to believe he violated a condition of his parole at his preliminary parole revocation hearing and sought a writ of habeas corpus. Ciccone was released from incarceration, but was declared delinquent by DOCCS days later, and a warrant was lodged that Ciccone violated seven conditions of parole. A parole officer (PO) proceeded on only the third charge—failure to notify a PO of an arrest—and Ciccone's counsel objected to admission of the arrest notification the PO received arguing it did not qualify under the business record hearsay exception, and there was no other evidence of Ciccone's arrest. The hearing officer sustained the charge finding probable cause to believe Ciccone failed to immediately notify his PO of his arrest. The court found Ciccone's claims had merit despite relaxed evidentiary standards at hearings. It noted while evidence showed the PO personally investigated Ciccone's situation, DOCCS failed to establish he could have notified the PO of his arrest but failed to do so. Also, the HO failed to engage in a good-cause analysis before admitting adverse hearsay statements. Thus, the petition was granted as due process was violated.