Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision

Transcription

1 Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Training, Education, & Public Relations Committee MINUTES June 20, :00am ET Teleconference Members in Attendance: 1. Anne Precythe Chair, MO 2. Scott McCaffery ME 3. Russell Marlan MI 4. Roberta Cohen NM 5. Hope Cooper KS 6. Tim Strickland Ex-officio, FL 7. Mark Patterson Ex-officio, OR 8. Sally Reinhardt-Stewart Ex-officio, NE Members not in Attendance: 1. Chris Moore GA 2. Joe Clocker MD 3. Dara Matson IL 4. James Parks VA Staff: 1. Ashley Lippert, Executive Director 2. Lori Meister, Assistant Director 3. Barno Saturday, Logistics and Administrative Coordinator 4. Kevin Terry, Website Analyst 5. Mindy Spring, Administrative and Training Coordinator 6. Xavier Donnelly, Project Manager Call to Order Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) called the meeting to order at 11:02 am ET. Five voting members were present, a quorum was established. Agenda Commissioner R. Marlan (MI) moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner R. Cohen (NM) seconded. Agenda approved. Minutes Commissioner R. Marlan (MI) moved to approve the minutes from March 15, 2017 as written. Commissioner H. Cooper (KS) seconded. Minutes approved. Discussion 1 Approved on 9/6/2017. B.S.

2 Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) presented the Training Committee report to the Committee. Three different types of trainings took place in May: Compact Staff Training (May 2, 3 & 4) 350+ attendees from 48 states States that did NOT attend: CA, IA, OK, VI & VT Amendment Training Technical & Training Assistance Texas (15), Nebraska (2), Wisconsin (5), New Mexico (4), Washington (2), Michigan (2), Georgia (2) General Rules Training (May 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, & 25) Eligibility: 140+ attendees Transferring Supervision: 146+ attendees Supervision in Receiving State: 136+ attendees Behavior Requiring Retaking: 204+ attendees Mandatory Retake for New Conviction/Absconders Apprehended in RS: 139+ attendees Probable Cause Hearings in RS: 147+ attendees The national office updated all 17 ondemand module courses and completely re-formatted five of them. There was a higher than normal usage due to amendment implementation. Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) shared the document with six issues that came up during the rule amendment trainings. She suggested using some of the issues as the hot topics ideas at the ABM: 1. PC Hearing Requirements Receiving states should EXPECT to conduct/offer a PC hearing in conjunction with Rule prior to retake by the sending state Sending state should ENSURE a PC is established prior to retaking if there is a possibility of revocation of supervision for violations committed in receiving state Are the issues with subpoenas for out of state witnesses at revocation hearings and courts simply not addressing violations but rather reinstating after retake related to poor documentation of established PC or other violation documentation? As issues come up, a full audit of the ICOTS records may be needed. DCA T. Strickland (FL) stated that the biggest part of the PC hearing requirement is not conducting it, but to have a mechanism of training in place for court personnel for the recognition and use of the PC hearing results. He stated that in Florida, there are number of defense attorneys that are using a subpoena process for out of state officers as the negotiation tool to get a deal cut for their clients as opposed to heaving the state to have the expense of bringing officers to testify from another state. Commissioner C. Precythe (MO) discussed PC hearing tools to use by compact offices recordings, teleconference, waiver, etc. 2 Approved on 9/6/2017. B.S.

3 M. Spring informed the Committee that out of all retaking cases from the last two years, only less than 14% had a PC hearing established. DCA T. Strickland (FL) stated that historically Florida rarely asks for PC hearing. Now, in Florida, the compact office immediately asks for PC hearing if a case comes in with a technical violation. Commissioner R. Cohen (NM) agreed with T. Strickland to educate court personnel. New Mexico has similar issue. DCA M. Petterson (OR) stated that it is not a problem in Oregon. Oregon parole board works closely with and provides trainings to its 36 counties. 2. Reporting Jail Time so that the receiving state doesn t impose more jail time than what the offender was originally sentenced to. Is this a legal issue if an offender is subject to and/or imposed jail time as a sanction in the receiving state? Upon transfer, they agree to the receiving state s conditions, which could include jail time before revocation is sought. How are similar situations handled when it is an in-state offender in the receiving state? Given the varying differences in each state s sentencing structure, can this be measured to where the time of incarceration is limited to whatever the judge imposed at sentencing? Documentation requirements for sending and receiving state (tracking jail credit)/possible enhancement?? DCA S. Reinhardt-Stewart (NE) informed the Committee that Nebraska implements its custodial sanctions in July. Commissioner S. McCaffery (ME) stated that Maine does not have this issue. 3. Discretionary Retaking by the sending state based on violations not meeting behavior requiring retaking in the receiving state (reported on a Progress Report) Clarification on Rule (f) notify of decision to retake : regardless as to how the violations were reported, if the sending state is going to use the violations committed in the receiving state as basis for revocation (mandatory retaking or not) the offender is still entitled to a PC hearing in the receiving state. Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) stated that in North Carolina if revocation was not on the table, no PC hearing is required to be held and the sending state can order the offender to return, but if they are asking for revocation, then the PC hearing must be held. 4. States claiming (particularly in parolee cases) that a new pending charge usually results in revocation. States want to move directly to an OVR, but the offender is NOT available so retaking is NOT required at this point. A couple of issues with this 3 Approved on 9/6/2017. B.S.

4 States can t ignore the exceptions in so they need to be sure EVERYTHING has been exhausted. Courts/Parole Boards (if they can impose possible sanctions) should be involved in this process. Based on discussions, this does not appear to be occurring in most states. Are states interpreting revocation universally? If a state claims to revoke for 3 months, then re-release an offender to supervision, is this technically a revocation or is it a sanction? Commissioner R. Cohen (NM) stated that there is a lot of confusion around this issue. Different states interpret it differently. DCA T. Strickland (FL) shared FL compact office s practice. Any violation report that comes with just a new arrest gets kicked back and Florida is instructing them that they have to submit it on the progress report. Florida makes its staff to read progress reports to make sure the recommendation on the progress report is not to return to the other state. Commissioner H. Cooper (KS) stated that it is a challenge in Kansas. They use revocation for sanctioning. Their parole revocation is 90 days. Commissioner H. Cooper (KS) stated that even though Kansas is struggling with this, it has allowed it to challenge its thought process. She requested to be patient with KS cases. As an example, she cited a very violent domestic violence arrest that is given misdemeanor charges, and it becomes a struggle for parole officers to supervise these cases. Kansas continues to review and looks for improvements in its process. 5. Recommend revocation is NOT the officer s personal recommendation. It also should be likely revocation would take place. Possible training bulletin needed?-explaining ALL agencies are subject to rules and ALL responses (no matter what agency imposes the response) have exhausted what would be done if an instate offender Seems to be more prevalent in county probation states where petitions to revoke are used when simply reporting violations to the court and other action (swift and certain/ebps) is more likely than revocation. DCA T. Strickland (FL) tells his officers that the retaking should be addressing an offender s behavior and public safety and not the officer s workload. He demands all violation reports be held to his standards since it has his name on it. 6. Programs/sanctions not available to compact offenders due to funding or how legislation was written: As these are usually residents/resident family, why is that? Isn t it more costly for states to initiate retaking, reinstating and resubmission rather than just treating these offenders as you would your own? Need to continue to ask these questions to states, ensuring states are moving forward. 4 Approved on 9/6/2017. B.S.

5 Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) will present the discussed document at the upcoming Executive Committee meeting. New Business Commissioner A. Precythe (MO) stated that that national office will have a one-on-one conversations with all DCAs regarding the questions below. The Training Committee will get a better understanding about the Commission s training needs. Inquire on states supervision and judicial practices for responding to non- compliant behavior. o What is done with court/parole board involvement and without court/parole board involvement? o Confirm when court/parole boards are not involved, officers have full authority to sanction up to revoke or extend supervision. o Other? Committee members should provide any comments or questions regarding the conversations with DCAs or training issues identified to M. Spring. She will put together the questions and share them with the DCA liaison committee for their feedback and additional questions. The one-on-one conversations with DCAs project will take about 4-6 weeks to complete. The Committee will meet again in a couple of months. Adjourn Commissioner R. Cohen (NM) moved to adjourn. Commissioner R. Marlan (MI) seconded. Meeting adjourned at 12:12 pm ET. 5 Approved on 9/6/2017. B.S.