A parole agent may perform a protective frisk of a person present during a routine check of a parolee’s approved residence if the agent reasonably suspects that person is armed and dangerous, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held in Com. v. Mathis.
Parole agents violated a parolee’s Fifth Amendment rights by interrogating him about new crimes while he was in custody, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Com. v. Cooley, III.
The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole was not divested of jurisdiction to recommit a convicted parole violator when it failed to declare the parolee delinquent before the expiration of his original sentence, the Commonwealth Court held in Price v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole