Community-Based Corrections Programs

Probation Reforms Enacted 

 

   

   

The probation reform bill pushed by Governor Perdue's office was enacted into law last  week with a unanimous vote.   The final bill contained many improvements over the original bill.  That initial version opened juvenile records to probation and expanded warrantless searches of probationers.  Juvenile experts and DOC officials negotiated to provide important protections for juvenile records when they are made available to adult probation officers.  

    The adopted bill has been limited to probationers under 25 and will require  each probation district to assign a specific officer to the task of reviewing juvenile records at the request of the supervising officer. 

 

   Only offenses that would have been felonies if committed by an adult are eligible for review.  Copies of records shall continue to be confidential and shall be destroyed within 30 days of the juvenile's termination of probation supervision. 
     

    Specific conditions of probation have also been added that apply to Intermediate probationers including: not using or possessing alcohol and participating in evaluation, counseling, educational and treatment programs as directed by the probation office.

     Information systems improvements are almost complete that will make it possible for law enforcement officers to finally access the data which tells them when a person is on probation.  This change has been in a slow-moving process for years and was hastened by the tragic murder of Eve Carson. 

     A continuing concern about the bill is its potential to erode constitutional protections against warrantless searches when carried out by law enforcement.  Law enforcement officers already have the power to conduct a warrantless search when they have "probable cause" to believe that a crime is underway.  The newly enacted provision lowers that standard and allows warrantless searches of a vehicle or person to take place when there is a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity.    Opponents of this provision -  who raised concerns about the provision's constitutionality - were assured that the provision had been drawn as tightly as possible by the Attorney General's office.   We applaud the improvements that were made from the initial version, but time will tell if probationers' constitutional rights have been eroded or protected.   This is likely to be a question that will finally be answered by the Courts. 

       Finally, we recommend that probation keep  it's eye on training and  "courtesy caseloads."  Those are the two primary areas that led to a major lapse in supervision in Durham and Wake counties last year.  If funded positions are not filled (as they were not) and  if officers are not trained in a timely fashion (as they were not) probation will be unable to carry out its most basic mission - supervising individuals assigned to probation.