I forgot to address this: the probation officer fills out a form each visit for the probationer. It carries the standard clauses--no alcohol, no drugs, blah blah blah--but it also has a large blank space in which the probation agent can write other specific conditions of probation and these can be modified, added to and deleted at each visit. Before the probationer can leave the office, the probationer has to sign the form. If the probationer refuses to sign, the probation officer puts the probationer in cuffs, calls the police department for transport and the probationer is put in jail. The first week in jail is at the probation officer's authority; the second week has to be authorized by the PO's supervisor. The third week in jail is authorized out of the corrections dept. in Madison. I'd have to look it up to verify, but the probation revocation has to be started in that third week, although it can be earlier. And I'd just bet taping a probation meeting without prior consent of the agent is a violation of the rules.
The PO will go to the jail with the probation form within the first 24-48 hours to see if the probationer will sign it. They'll usually come back once or twice, usually with another agent or the agent's supervisor. If the PO refuses, they ask if the probationer wants to voluntarily revoke his or her parole. If it's no, then they go ahead with the revocation. Then they have to wait for the administrative judge to come to that county for the hearing. That can be 2-4 weeks later, sometimes longer.
Given the many collect calls the law office has gotten from probationers cooling his or her heels in jail (and the screaming phone calls from the girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, mothers--but rarely fathers), it takes repeated explanations that when someone's in on a probation hold, there is no bail hearing because there is no bail for a probation hold.
From reading the article, it doesn't appear that this was a "probation meeting". The officer was at the woman's house to facilitate entry by CPS. It cannot be illegal or "against the rules" to tape conversations occurring in your own home, with or without consent. No one who enters your home has any expectation of privacy from you.
It is interesting to see how the "rules" are interpreted, though. I had a friend who was having some problems with a CPS worker. She would talk to the worker on the phone, and when she read the report to the court, the conversations were never reported correctly, always slanted against her. So she taped some of the conversations to prove her point (I listened to the tape and read the case worker's report to the court - the case worker flat-out lied.) When she presented the evidence to the caseworker's supervisor, instead of disciplining the caseworker for filing a false report, they wanted to prosecute my friend for wiretapping.
As a further irony, CPS called me to interview me about the incident. When they got to court, they had a tape of the interview - made without my knowledge or consent. So they were going to try to convict my friend for taping them without consent - by using a tape they made without my consent! (The wiretapping charge was eventually dropped.)