TRADITIONALLY PROBATION AND PAROLE WERE CONSIDERED TO BE EXTENSIONS OF INCARCERATION AND, WHEN EITHER WAS REVOKED, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS WAS MERELY SUBSTITUTING ONE FORM OF CUSTODY FOR ANOTHER. THUS, PROBATION AND PAROLE HEARINGS WERE NOT CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. SINCE PROBATION IS ADMINISTERED BY THE COURTS, IT WAS THE FIRST OF THESE TWO PROCESSES TO BE CHALLENGED. PAROLE, HOWEVER, IS A STRICTLY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WITHIN A CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT. AS A RESULT, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN LESS WILLING TO HOLD THAT PAROLE REVOCATION HEARINGS ARE SUBJECT TO SIXTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS. STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS BOTH UPHOLDING AND DENYING A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING SUCH HEARINGS ARE REVIEWED. THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED THIS RIGHT, BUT TWO U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES UPHELD THIS RIGHT. THESE TWO CASES DO NOT LEAD INEXORABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PAROLEES HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT REVOCATION HEARINGS, BUT INDICATE THAT AN ABSOLUTE RULE THAT PAROLEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED OR RETAINED COUNSEL FOR SUCH HEARINGS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE GAGNON DECISION, WHICH DISCUSSES THIS MATTER AT LENGTH, IS REVIEWED IN DETAIL. A CONNECTICUT CASE WHICH EMPHASIZES THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND ROLE OF COUNSEL AT THE HEARING IS THEN REVIEWED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT NINE STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROVIDE FOR A RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT PAROLE REVOCATION HEARINGS EITHER BY STATUTE OR THROUGH CASE LAW. FOOTNOTES CONTAIN NUMEROUS CASE CITATIONS. (GLR)