Probation Office: A Case Study

Details: Prior to my arrival, dispatch checked Shawn through NCIC/CCIC. Dispatch advised he had a valid warrant, which is as follows; felony failure to appear, $0 bond and docket number D0392017CR000880.

On 03/31/17, Mr. Plaches was charged with Violation of Probation and sentenced to 24 Years at supervision level 5 with credit for 64 days previously served balance of sentence is suspended for 1 year level 4 Home Confinement, followed by 7 years at supervision level 3 (CRA#VS100079404).

In addition, he enagaged in criminal activity dealing illegal drugs that poison communities and destroy families. It is the probation offices belief that the offender is unwilling to abide the social norms of society and that he poses a significant risk to public safety. Therefore the following recommendation of placing additional restraints while within the community on the offender appears warranted.

On March 28, 2016, I was assigned this case to follow up. This investigation involves Ms. Ashlyn Cruz a sixteen year old T.C Williams High School student who is a frequent runaway. In the last couple of months I have been assigned multiple runaway cases Involving Ms. Cruz. I have been in touch with Mr. Locke of the Court Services Unit and her probation Officer Pamela Nieva.

On February 17, 2017 a probation warrant was issued for Michael Thompson at CC201507178 for the instant violation offense at OTN: G 766308-4 for Possession of a Controlled Substance, Endangering the Welfare of Children, Disorderly Conduct, Driving While Operating Privileges is Suspended or Revoked and Possession of Drug.

Juvenile Probation Officers have the authority of a Peace Officer when handling any probationer in the state of Arizona. When dealing with a juvenile on probation, a Probation Officer has the power to arrest with only reasonable suspicion. A Probation Officer also has the right to search a probationer without a warrant. All of these authorities of a Police Officer are honored to a Probation Officer when encountering a

In separate cases two men whose names are Nicholas A. Kurchock and Jeremy M. Shafer. They returned to prison and their judges revoked their paroles and probation. Kurchock could remain in prison until March 7, 2018 and Shafer could remain in prison until Dec. 18, 2018. Kurchock violating his parole and probation by not reported to his supervising officer for 2 months, moving without permission, failing 2 drug tests, not finishing alcohol highway safety school, and song other stuff. He pleaded guilty on June 7 to, driving under the influence, stop sign violation, failure to obey traffic control devices, careless driving, and possession of a small amount of marijuana. He was sentenced to serve 5 days to six months in prison, 12 months on probation

One offender was non-compliant with the terms of their parole. They had not been showing up to whatever treatment they were supposed to receive, so they were called in (542-544). The offender claims there was some kind of mix up with the dates of the appointments that were set and that it was the office’s fault for not changing them. This offender was released under supervision, but the Judge threatened to revoke their parole if they continued to not keep up with the treatment. She explained that ultimately it was up to the offender to make sure appointments were changed and that everyone that needed to be notified was made aware.

On July 6, 2015, I was assigned this case to follow up. This case involves Mr. Tavon Lanier a fourteen year old male. Mr. Lanier’s mother, Ashauta Lanier reported her son ran away on July 4, 2015. On July 7, 2015, I spoke to Mr. Don Earlington Intake Officer of the Court Service Unit. He confirmed an active detention order for Mr. Lanier. Mr. Earlington confirmed previous runaway events and additional incidents in Maryland where Mr. Lanier had taken a handgun to school. Mr. Lanier’s current Probation Officer is Macalister.

Larry’s prior history and involvement with the Department of Juvenile Justice is moderate. Larry was placed on indeterminate supervised probation on July 11, 2013, after being found guilty of unlawful wounding. He was also ordered to complete 25 hours of community service work and a complete a letter of apology. Larry’s adjustment to supervision was moderate. He was found guilty of a violation of probation in May of 2014, and was sentenced to 12 days in detention and was released from supervision.

The history of probation and parole influences the decisions that are made in the Adult Court System toward the supervision of adult offenders by considering community corrections and involve supervision in the community. In the criminal justice system, there are many individuals locked up in local, state, and federal institutions. John Augustus probation bears much resemblance to probation as it is practiced today. He took great care in deciding which prisoners were promising candidates for probation. He also considers the offender’s character, age and factors that would have an impact on the offender after being released. His efforts actually were resisted by police, court clerks, and turnkeys who were paid only when offenders were incarcerated (Klein, 1997). The punishment for violating probation or parole is to continue supervision or to withdraw and incarcerate the offender.

"Approximately 1 in 51 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2013, the lowest rate observed since 1996" (Herberman & Bonczar, 2014, p.1). Probation/parole supervision also known as "community" supervision, helps individuals (ex-criminals) acclimate back in their community. Probation is used when a judge chooses to let the offender serve his sentence under officer supervision in the community, rather than in prison. It is usually given to individuals that have committed a non-violent/ minor infraction or that have a really good defense attorney. However, when someone has been sent to prison for an extended period of time but have served a certain amount of their time or has proven to the Parole Board that they have improved their behavior, will be released to a Parole officer. The probation and parole program is comprised of two approaches casework and brokerage. Casework approach deals with the offender as a flawed person that needs help; brokerage approach is when the probation/parole officer uses his influence in the community to assist the criminal in finding employment or programs. Knowing how to use these approaches along with monitoring techniques will assist in the officer and offender being successful. This paper will examine the approaches to PO work along with the types of monitoring used to keep track of offenders. The purpose of this paper is to examine the elements of community supervision (probation/parole) that will make the

rogress: On 2/6/17 CPSW received an email from Ms. Messerli's probation officer reporting that Ms. Messerli has not remained law abiding and she has not remained sober. Ms. Messerli was no show to her PO appointment and she did not stay sober. Ms. Messerli has an appointment with her probation on 2/8/17. The probation officer reported that if Ms. Messerli is a no show again to her appointment, she will issue a probation violation for 1). Failing to meet with probation, 2). Failing to complete a Rule 25, 3). Failing to remain law-abiding 4). Failing to remain

On 03-20-2017, at approximately 1415 hours, I was at 1605 N. John Young Parkway (State Probation) awaiting Mr. Brandon H. Josephs arrival. I observed Mr. Josephs drive up on his motorcycle, the same motorcycle that fled from me and he looked identical to the subject that fled from me on 07-19-2017.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “probationers are offenders under adult supervision who are placed on supervision in the community by the court, generally as an alternative to incarceration”. Conditions of probation vary greatly among jurisdictions. Some offenders who receive probation may have a split-sentence imposed. This means they are incarcerated for a period of time and then are released on probation. Once on probation, an offender receives an order they will be on either active status or other orders may be deemed an offender as on inactive status. For those who do have to report, they may be given the option to report in electronically or by calling their probation officer regularly. Some are allowed to check in