In Morrissey and Gagnon, the US Supreme Court established a two-step process for revocation proceedings. 

Step 1: A preliminary hearing to determine the appropriateness of the individual's detention due to suspected violations of conditions of supervision.  

Step 2: A proceeding to consider the merits of the actual revocation of supervised release. 

This two-pronged hearing requirement is applicable prior to retaking when a supervised individual is detained in a receiving state, as distance or other factors may hinder their defense in future revocation proceedings.

The purpose of a due process hearing in the receiving state is to prevent arbitrary actions by state officials, such as detention or revocation of community supervision. The hearing aims to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding alleged violations, including validating the violations and creating an official record for the sending state’s subsequent revocation hearing. 

Officials in the receiving state should consider whether revocation would occur in the receiving state for a similarly situated individual when deciding to detain an individual for retaking due to violations. If there is uncertainty about the sending state's intent to revoke, the supervised individual should be afforded a probable cause hearing as specified in Rule 5.108. Failure to do so may prevent the violations from being considered in subsequent revocation proceedings in the sending state.

A supervised individual is entitled to a probable cause hearing in the receiving state when:

1. The individual is in custodial detention in the receiving state due to supervision violations or a request from the sending state for their detention.
2. The alleged violations may lead to revocation of community supervision by the sending state and geographical distance prevents the supervised individual from adequately presenting a defense including calling witnesses or presenting exculpatory evidence.
3. The supervised individual was reported as an absconder by the receiving state and subsequently apprehended on the sending state’s warrant.