In Meehan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 808 A.2d 313, 317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), the parolee, Meehan, sought credit for the time he spent at Keenan House, a drug and alcohol treatment facility in Allentown. Meehan argued, inter alia, that because some of the persons at Keenan House were pre-release inmates who got credit for their time, it was unfair and a violation of equal protection not to give him, a parolee, credit for time spent at the same facility. The Court rejected Meehan's argument, noting that there was a difference between parolees and pre-release inmates by reason of their status. An inmate is in "official detention," even while on leave in a facility such as Keenan House and, thus, can be charged with escape. By contrast, a parolee is not in official detention but only "under supervision" and, thus, could not be charged with the crime of escape for absconding from Keenan House. This different status, the Court held, justified treating pre-release inmates and parolees at Keenan House differently for purposes of sentence credit. In reaching this conclusion, the Court looked at the statutory meaning of "official detention." 18 Pa. C.S. 5121(e). Notably, "official detention" is "for law enforcement purposes ... but the phrase does not include supervision of probation or parole, or constraint incidental to release on bail." Id. Because Meehan was on parole, he was under "supervision" at Keenan House; he was not there for "law enforcement purposes." Meehan could have walked through doors that were not locked in such a way as to prevent one on the inside of Keenan House from leaving and ... no one would have tried to stop Meehan from walking out one of those doors. Meehan, 808 A.2d at 316. However, Meehan would not commit a crime by walking through those doors. Notably, the evidence in Meehan showed that the program at Keenan House was restrictive. Parolees were "closely monitored," with three head counts per day that were reported to the Department of Corrections. Id. at 316. The first floor doors and windows were alarmed. A parolee could not go outside, except in the company of another patient or parolee. Recognizing the deference owed to the Board, this Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that the parolee did not prove that Keenan House was so restrictive as to constitute a prison equivalent, notwithstanding its "close monitoring." Id.