Committee hears support for expanding 'custody' definition to include parole and probation officers

The House Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 11 heard testimony in support of House Bill 2,465, which would amend Oregon statutes to include parole and probation officers in the definition of “custody” for the crime of escape and add parole and probation officers to the list of authorities who may access Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driver-license photos.

Parole and probation officers, county community corrections directors, the Oregon Department of Corrections and sheriff’s organizations testified that current statutory language leaves parole and probation officers without consistent prosecutorial protections when an adult on supervision flees or assaults officers while being taken into custody.

Rachel Strickland, a Deschutes County parole and probation officer and instructor, described a 2021 incident in which she chased and caught a person under supervision who then assaulted her; the district attorney later dismissed an escape charge because current statutes do not explicitly include parole and probation officers in the definition of custody. “This creates some serious concerns for parole and probation officers,” Strickland told the committee, saying that offenders have come to believe they can flee without facing escape charges.

Jennifer Cameron, an adult parole and probation officer in Linn County, gave a separate example in which a parolee who later assaulted officers with a machete was not charged with escape because a parole officer — not a peace officer as defined elsewhere in statute — had initiated custody. She said the ambiguity also generates questions about use of force, search and seizure and other authorities affecting officers’ safety.

Nick Breiten, a Jackson County parole and probation officer and past chair of the Federation of Oregon Probation and Parole Officers, emphasized two elements of the bill: adding parole and probation officers to the custody definition and allowing officers access to DMV photos to verify identities of protected parties in domestic-violence cases.

JB Holcomb, speaking for the Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors (OACCD), said the bill would make prosecutorial practices more consistent across counties and urged support. Jeremiah Stromberg, assistant director of parole and probation at the Oregon Department of Corrections, cited an increase in violence against parole officers nationwide in 2024 and urged lawmakers to provide the same protections and authorities parole and probation officers receive as other law enforcement personnel. Clatsop County Sheriff Matt Phillips, testifying for the Oregon State Sheriffs Association and the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, also voiced support and pointed to ORS citations referenced in testimony.

Committee members discussed possible effective-date options. Representative Mannix asked whether the bill could include an emergency clause to put the changes into effect upon the governor’s signature; witnesses, including Stromberg, said an emergency clause could be appropriate because the bill would not require additional training or rulemaking by state agencies.

Supporters urged passage so officers can reliably make arrests on supervision violations and prosecutors can pursue escape charges where appropriate. No formal vote on HB 2,465 was recorded during the public hearing; testimony closed and the committee took no immediate action on the measure during the Feb. 11 hearing.