Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DOCR asks committee to clarify when probation starts after electronic monitoring or inpatient treatment
Summary
The Department of Corrections asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify that the probation period begins after a defendant completes an alternative to incarceration (house arrest, electronic monitoring, inpatient treatment) unless a court specifies otherwise; the committee approved a do‑pass recommendation.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify when the legal period of supervised probation begins if a court sentence includes an alternative to incarceration such as house arrest, electronic monitoring or inpatient treatment.
Tom Earhart, chief parole and probation officer, told the committee Senate Bill 2067 would amend North Dakota Century Code § 12.132‑06.1 to specify that probation begins after the defendant's release from incarceration or from an alternative to incarceration unless the court's judgment sets a different start date. "Our business practice historically has been to treat any alternative to incarceration as incarceration when it comes to the statute," Earhart said; the amendment would make that interpretation explicit and ensure business practice follows clear statutory direction.
Earhart described a scenario in which a defendant receives a two‑year sentence with all but 30 days suspended and the suspended portion served on house arrest. Under the department's practice, the two‑year probation period would start after the 30 days of house arrest are completed. Earhart said the change would reduce confusion when defendants fail to comply with the court's alternative sanction and the department must decide whether to file a petition for revocation.
Committee members asked whether the practical result would be that probation "starts when the ankle monitor comes off." Earhart confirmed that absent a court‑specified start date, that is the department's practice. He also explained how probation officers respond to violations depending on the seriousness and community‑safety risk, ranging from immediate sanctions and behavioral interventions to petitions for revocation.
Senator Meerdahl moved a due‑pass recommendation on Senate Bill 2067; the committee took a verbal roll call and the motion carried. Senator Meerdahl will carry the bill.
The bill clarifies the department's statutory interpretation and aims to align business practice with statute to reduce uncertainty about when probation runs and when revocation petitions are appropriate.
