DOCR seeks to keep class B misdemeanants off state‑supervised probation; committee discussion raises staffing and public‑safety questions

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2111, introduced by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR), which would clarify that people convicted of class B misdemeanors may not be placed under the DOCR’s supervised probation caseload and instead should be supervised by community corrections or other non‑DOCR programs.

Tom Earhart, chief parole and probation officer for DOCR, said the 2015 Justice Reinvestment reforms intended to focus state probation resources on moderate‑ and high‑risk offenders, not low‑level class B misdemeanants. Earhart told the committee that keeping class B cases off state caseloads would free probation officers to concentrate on higher‑risk individuals. “When you think about class B misdemeanors ... these are the lowest level crimes. Do we need state level resources and correctional supervision that potentially could put that person into the spotlight of additional conditions of supervision?” he asked.

Committee members raised practical concerns. Several senators asked what would happen if judges, deprived of the option to place a defendant on DOCR‑supervised probation, instead sentenced offenders to jail. Earhart acknowledged that could happen and that community corrections are not available in every jurisdiction, and he said DOCR staffing levels and resource allocation influenced the agency’s position. He also said probation officers’ caseloads are high in many locations and that diverting low‑risk cases is consistent with the 2015 reforms’ intent.

Senator questions focused on recidivism rates, case volumes and local availability of community corrections. Earhart said many class B offenders are low‑risk and “self‑correct” after a sanction; he did not provide statewide caseload reduction figures but offered to supply numbers later.

What happened next: Committee members discussed possible amendments that would exclude class B offenses that involve bodily injury; Senators asked time to draft language. Rather than advancing the bill, members agreed to pause work to allow Senator Castaneda and others to draft an amendment and return it to the committee. Senator Brownberger withdrew a due‑pass motion so members could craft changes.

Ending note: The DOCR sought a statutory clarification consistent with earlier criminal justice reforms; the committee asked for more data and asked members to consider narrower carve‑outs for bodily‑injury offenses before moving the bill forward.