Monroe County judge revokes defendant's participation in drug court after transfer and housing issues

Monroe County Circuit Court revoked Clyde Cecil Cavan Jr.'s participation in drug court after hearing testimony that he transferred from Monroe County to Allen County, was placed at a single approved sober-living home there, was discharged from that placement and drove without a license while on the placement.

Samantha Neely, identified herself as "program and recovery coordinator for Allen and Simpson County Drug Corps," testified that Cavan's transfer was accepted March 3, 2025, with orientation March 5, 2025, and that his transfer was contingent on placement at a sober living called the Dream House. Neely said Cavan was administratively discharged from that placement after the program learned he had driven despite not having a license and following complaints from private individuals.

Cavan testified he had left the sober-living placement after an incident in which he drove to work one day and was confronted; he said he then returned to Monroe County and stayed with his father while trying to arrange alternate placement in Bowling Green. He asked the court for another opportunity to enter or re-enter drug court in Monroe County, to return to his prior address in Monroe County, or to be sent to long-term treatment. "And now that I'm taking accountability now, I would I was hoping to maybe either get a chance to go back into drug court here in Monroe County," he told the judge.

The Commonwealth opposed relief, describing the underlying events that led to the original referral to drug court and noting the program's policy that termination of the program typically results in a verification filing. After hearing argument from defense counsel, who asked the court to withhold revocation and permit alternatives, the judge reviewed the record and said the defendant had violated the condition of the program, including driving while not licensed and failing placement. The judge revoked Cavan's drug-court participation and noted he would consider a motion for "shock" (shock incarceration) at some future time.

The court's action was limited to termination of drug-court participation; the transcript indicates the judge left open the possibility of future requests for alternative custody (shock) but did not enter any alternative sentence at the hearing.