Judge Boyd limits work window, requires strict reporting for defendant seeking broader hours

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court ordered narrow work hours and strict reporting requirements for a defendant who asked to work long days while on pretrial release during a docket call.

The action matters because the defendant had asked the court for broad permission to work long hours while on pretrial conditions in a case that includes allegations of family-violence–related offenses; the judge said she would allow limited movement for employment only after imposing documentation requirements intended to protect potential complainants and the public.

In court the state opposed the defendant’s requested hours, saying the proposed 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. window was too permissive. Defense counsel told the judge the defendant’s work required travel and visits to a post office box and clients’ homes. Judge Boyd declined the broad request: “I’m not doing 9AM to 8PM,” she said, and later told the defense that “tracking is not gonna be allowed. That’s not even a consideration.”

Instead, Boyd ordered that the defendant be allowed to work Monday through Saturday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., with work-related travel and stops limited to that window. The court required the defendant to pick and report a specific daily time block to visit a PO box and to provide the physical address of that PO box in the court order. The judge also required pretrial services to be notified in advance when the defendant planned to travel for work, asked that the defendant email pretrial services as a written proof of reporting at scheduled times, and said the defendant must email when leaving a job site and when returning home so there is a record of the stop and duration.

The court instructed that the allowed travel and stops be strictly work-related and limited each PO-box visit to a single daily trip not to exceed about an hour. The judge said the reporting emails and pretrial notifications would serve as the evidentiary record of movement, and that the defendant should retain copies of those emails in case of any dispute about compliance. The state and defense were told to reduce the conditions to a written order for the record.

The judge set a jury-trial date for the case and directed counsel to coordinate with the court coordinator about exact scheduling.

The order replaces the defendant’s prior request for an extended daily window and for “tracking” or GPS-only monitoring as an accommodation to work. The court emphasized its duty to protect potential victims when the charges include allegations tied to family violence and to limit open-ended movement that could undermine safety.

The court’s written order will list the precise time blocks and the PO-box address and will include the email-reporting and pretrial-notification requirements.