A DETAINER IS LODGED PURSUANT TO AN UNEXECUTED PAROLE VIOLATOR'S WARRANT AT THE CUSTODIAL INSTITUTION, AND THE PAROLE REVOCATION HEARING IS DEFERRED UNTIL AFTER SERVICE OF THE INTERVENING SENTENCE. MAINTENANCE OF THE DETAINER USUALLY CAUSES LOSS OF PRISON PRIVILEGES, AND DEFERRAL OF THE REVOCATION HEARING MAY PROLONG THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT. THE CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS ON DUE PROCESS ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THESE REGULATIONS ARE ANALYZED AND CRITICIZED. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. THE INDIVIDUAL HAS ONLY A MARGINAL INTEREST IN MORE EXPENSIVE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. THE BOARD'S CURRENT REGULATIONS REFLECT AN AWARENESS OF THE OPERATIVE DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES AND, THROUGH THE COMBINED USE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ORAL HEARINGS, EFFECTIVELY ACCOMMODATE THE INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN FAIR TREATMENT AND THE BOARD'S OWN INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)