February 29, 2016 Prison Population Control Task Force Members, I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this task force. A great deal of information has been brought forth, and there have been excellent discussions about the drivers of Minnesota s prison population. But one thing we have learned is that there are no easy answers, and that no single solution is likely to stop the growth of our prison population. Our prison growth is the result of many individual policy decisions that each made sense at the time but that cumulatively led to this result. In order to reverse the flow, we will have to similarly look at multiple aspects of our criminal justice system and make adjustments. Senator Latz has proposed a full menu of policy options. I agree with the majority of them, and hope they will be pursued in this and the coming legislative sessions. Below are three additional options that I offer for consideration. 1. Institute an earned time program for prison sentences. Shortly after Minnesota enacted the sentencing guidelines, the state also enacted a truth in sentencing provision, which eliminated good time, and required that all offenders serve a standard two-thirds of the pronounced sentence in prison and one-third on supervised release. This provision brought certainty to sentencing. It gave victims assurance that offenders would serve a specified period in prison, and it allowed Minnesota to predict prison capacity with a high degree of accuracy. However, it also eliminated a means of providing an incentive for offenders to participate in programming and to refrain from behavior that could result in disciplinary sanctions while in prison. An earned time program would restore that incentive model by allowing offenders to earn a reduction in their prison sentences by engaging in their case plan and maintaining good behavior in prison. It would also serve public safety because any reductions in the prison term would be based on a demonstrated record of program participation and good behavior. Because this approach is more formulaic, it would also be less costly to implement than a parole-type second look provision such as the one recently presented to the task force. The major components of an earned-time program might be as follows. Earned time should be based on both program compliance and good behavior (half for each) while in prison. The amount of time that could be earned would be capped. For example, if an offender were permitted to earn 3 days of earned time per month, this would result in a maximum 10% reduction in the offender s sentence. The Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines Commission reports that the average prison sentence is just over 45 months, so a 10% reduction would only reduce the average prison sentence by 4-1/2 months. This earned time program could be designed to fit within the current twothirds/one-third split. Offenders who participate could earn a reduction in their prison sentence, but offenders who do not participate would still serve a minimum of two-thirds of the pronounced sentence in prison. The most serious crimes, such as murder and certain sex offenses, could be excluded from the earned time program. Earned time would be forfeited if the offender escapes from prison or supervised release, commits a new crime, or commits a serious disciplinary infraction. Earned time would not be permitted for time spent in prison on a supervised release return. 2. Establish a new cap on the length of felony probation. Minn. Stat. 609.135 currently provides that probation for most felony offenses must be not more than four years or the maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed. Data produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission indicate that the average terms actually imposed range from 4 to 13 years depending on the offense type (see attached report on probation lengths). The Robina Institute is currently engaged in a project to measure whether probationers are serving out the full length of their terms or if they are being discharged early. We are also attempting to measure when within that term recidivism occurs. Preliminary results from a small sample of counties show that revocations tend to occur within the first 3 years of probation, and that individuals who are not revoked are serving between 80 and 100% of their pronounced probation terms before discharge. The revocation data is consistent with annual reporting done by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. It demonstrates that lengthy probation terms are not necessary from a public safety standpoint because behavior that tends to result in failure on probation occurs within the first few years of probation. Instead, lengthy probation terms may actually harm public safety because it may act as a disincentive for probationers to engage in rehabilitative programming, and because it may prolong the period of difficulty for individuals attempting to obtain housing or employment, which are both critical factors to offender success. Attached is a document detailing statutory probation terms in 21 other states. Of the states reviewed, 12 states cap felony probation at 5 years or less. Based on the above information, I would propose a cap of 5 years for felony probation. As an alternative, some offenses, such as certain sex offenses, could be carved out for lengthier probation terms, but this carve out should be utilized sparingly. 3. Mandate regular reporting on probation revocations and supervised release returns. Testimony at the earliest meetings of the Prison Population Control Task Force indicated that probation revocations and supervised release returns make up a large proportion of annual prison admissions (though these two groups may have shorter prison stays than 2 P a g e
those admitted for new convictions). Because Minnesota has a strong commitment to community supervision, a large proportion of the felony population is initially sentenced to probation rather than prison. But we do not have a clear picture as to how many probationers are being revoked to prison or why (e.g., treatment failure, failing to maintain contact with the probation officer, etc.). Nor do we have a clear picture as to why supervised releasees are being returned to prison. With better information about the numbers and reasons for both types of revocation, we will be better positioned to make decisions about what is and is not working about community supervision and to target our resources more effectively. Because our community supervision populations are so large, it is inevitable that unless we get revocations under control, they will continue to contribute to an ever increasing prison population. The DOC and county probation offices have just recently modified their systems to enable tracking of revocation information. Mandated reporting would ensure implementation of data collection and reporting practices. The Robina Institute would be pleased to offer assistance to the Legislature to further research and/or develop these or any other proposals stemming from the work of this task force. Sincerely, Kelly Lyn Mitchell Executive Director 3 P a g e
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL x 229 19TH AVE SOUTH x N160 MONDALE HALL x MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 x ROBINA@UMN.EDU x WWW.ROBINAINSTITUTE.ORG PROBATION IN-DEPTH THE LENGTH OF PROBATION SENTENCES that will reduce revocations and achieve better outcomes for probationers. Probation Revocation Project Advisory Board The Probation Revocation Advisory Board (PAB) is comprised by Alexis Lee Watts of a diverse group of criminal justice professionals, including judges, practitioners, scholars, and other stakeholders in community In 2014, the supervision, Robina Institute who provide of Criminal guidance, Law insight, and Criminal and Justice published a report entitled Profiles in Probation feedback Revocation: on the Examining direction of the project. Legal Framework For more information 21 States, on 1 the purpose of which was to gain understanding of the laws the and Probation processes Revocation governing Project probation and the revocation Advisory Board, in a cross-section visit of states. Building from that report, this informational www.robinainstitute.org/probation-revocation-project/. brief pulls together the statutes that govern the length of probation sentences in each of the twenty-one jurisdictions studied, 2 as well as the legal framework for early termination or extension of the probation term. Factors Determining Length of Probation The period of time that an individual will serve on probation is initially established by the court when the individual is sentenced. There are few constitutional restrictions on the length of probation, other than the requirement that the sentence conform to local laws. In many jurisdictions there are statutory limitations as to the length of the original probation sentence as well as whether and under what circumstances probation can be extended. Probation terms may typically be extended for probation violations or failure to meet certain conditions (e.g., not paying restitution). On the other hand, probationers may be incentivized by statutes that allow the court to shorten or terminate probation and release them from supervision, thus fulfilling their criminal sentence. Maximum Probation Terms for Felony and Misdemeanor Sentences Felonies are more serious offenses, and at this level, conviction may result in a prison sentence. For some dangerous offenses, state statutes may authorize a lifetime term of probation. 5 Setting lifetime probation aside, Table 1 focuses on the maximum terms of probation that may be imposed for other felony offenses in each jurisdiction. The most common length of felony probation is five years, with laws in 8 of the 21 states examined setting this as the maximum term. 6 In three states, the maximum probation period is unclear or discretionary. In three others, the maximum term of felony probation is tied to the maximum incarceration term for the crime. For example, in Minnesota, Table 1. Felony Probation Lengths Max. Length of Felony Probation States 1 year WA 2 years FL 3 3 years UT 4 years ME 5 years AL, IA, MO, MS, NY, NC, OH, OR 7 years AZ 10 years TX Discretionary Maximum term CO, MA CA, MN, PA, WI Unclear IN 4 the maximum felony incarceration term for a very serious crime is 40 years; this would also be the maximum possible length of probation for such an offense. 7 Misdemeanors are typically less serious offenses where the term of incarceration, if any, is shorter and is likely to be served in a county jail rather than a prison. However, states define misdemeanor differently; for example, in Pennsylvania, a misdemeanor sentence may extend for up to five years and may include a prison term whereas in Minnesota, a misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum of 90 days. 8 Most states researched set an absolute maximum number of years for which misdemeanor
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL x 229 19TH AVE SOUTH x N160 MONDALE HALL x MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 x ROBINA@UMN.EDU x WWW.ROBINAINSTITUTE.ORG Table 2. Misdemeanor Probation Lengths Number of States 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 AL, IA, MO, NC, TX, WA CA, CO, MS, OH, OR IN, ME, MN, WA AZ, NY, UT MA FL PA Discretionary 6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Max probation could be imposed, often capped at two years or five years. Only Massachusetts allows full judicial discretion in the probation term. 9 (See chart above). Early Termination of Probation Early termination of probation is generally a reward for good conduct. In some jurisdictions offenders are not eligible until they meet certain probation conditions, which can sometimes include full payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. 10 Two states in our sample, Texas and Wisconsin, allow consideration for early termination only after a certain percentage of the sentence is served. 11 Two states, North Carolina and Texas, also have an automatic review of probation at a certain number of years to see if the probationer would qualify for early termination. 12 In contrast, some states studied have no explicit mechanism for early termination of probation and either don t allow it (Washington, Indiana) or allow it through common law (Minnesota, Massachusetts). 13 Probation Extension Extension of probation allows the court to add time to the probationary term that must be served, usually up to the maximum term possible for a given crime. In about a third of the states studied, probation could only be extended after a probation violation. However, in many other states, the extension of probation can occur upon failure to complete specific conditions, often related to financial obligations. 14 In a few states, extension is at the discretion of the court (frequently with some due process limitations). Two jurisdictions, Maine and Washington, have no provisions to extend the probation term. 15 Chart 1. Early Termination of Probation Chart 2. Extension of Probation 10% 52% 9% 10% 19% n No early termination n Early termination without specific statute n Early termination at discretion of court n Early termination for cause (i.e. in the interest of justice, for good behavior, meeting certain terms) n Can be terminated only after a certain % of time is served 19% 38% 10% 33% n No extension for most people n No extension without violation n Can be extended for cause or to ensure completion of certain conditions (i.e. restitution) n Can be extended at discretion of court
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL x 229 19TH AVE SOUTH x N160 MONDALE HALL x MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455 x ROBINA@UMN.EDU x WWW.ROBINAINSTITUTE.ORG Why Does the Length of Probation Matter? Probation length prompts consideration of many competing interests. The probation term must be long enough to ensure community safety, to provide rehabilitative services, and to adequately punish offenders. Effective probation terms can both prevent future crime and foster individual growth for probationers. However, unnecessarily lengthy terms of probation may not benefit any of the stakeholders involved. State and local governments, for example, must determine whether the benefits to public safety of long supervision terms are outweighed by the rising costs over time of maintaining supervision over steadily growing caseloads. 16 [T]he length of the probation term depends on what an officer wants to accomplish and what resources the agency has in place to assist the offender in working toward his/her goals. Community tolerance and public safety factors also have to be considered [ ]. Carl Wicklund, Former Director, American Probation and Parole Association Therefore, it is important to strike a balance in probation length. In a 2014 study by the Center for Effective Public Policy prepared for the National Institute of Corrections, recommendations included systematically matching probation length to offender risk level and concluding the probation term after important rehabilitative goals and program successes were accomplished, rather than at a specific time. 17 Carl Wicklund, former director of the American Probation and Parole Association, believes that lengthy initial probation sentences may be justified, but that in appropriate cases probationers should be released from their term when they have accomplished all that was expected of them. For higher-risk offenders, he notes that the length of the probation term depends on what an officer wants to accomplish and what resources the agency has in place to assist the offender in working toward his/ her goals. Community tolerance and public safety factors also have to be considered [ ]. 18 The results in this brief may provide context for this ongoing discussion. REFERENCES 1 Robina Inst. of Crim. Law & Crim. Justice, Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States (2014), http://www.robinainstitute.org/ publications/profiles-probation-revocation-examining-legal-framework-21-states/ [hearinafter Profiles in Probation Revocation]. 2 The states we examined were: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. 3 The maximum in Florida may be less for those placed on community control where the entire sentence was under 2 years. Fla. Stat. 948.01(4)(2015). 4 Indiana recently repealed the statute that set the maximum term of probation for a felony. Ind. Code 35.50-2-2 (repealed eff. July 1, 2014). 5 See, e.g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-902(2015). 6 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1. 7 Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.135, subd. 2 (2015). 8 18 Pa. C. S. 106 (2015); Minn. Stat. 609.02, subd. 3 (2015). 9 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 297, 1A (2015); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 87 (2015). 10 See Fla. Stat. 948.04(3) (2015); Iowa Code 907.7(3), 907.9(1) (2015). 11 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 20(a) (2015); Wis. Stat. 973.09(2)(c)(3) (2015). 12 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 20(a) (2015); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 15A-1342(d) (2015). 13 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1, at 30, 46, 86; Commonwealth v. Hunt, 900 N.E. 2d. 121, 124 (Mass. App. 2009). 14 See, e.g. Minn. Stat. Ann. 609.135, subd. 2(g)-(h) (205) (extension can occur if probationer fails to pay restitution or complete treatment). 15 Profiles in Probation Revocation, supra note 1, at 88; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A 1202, 1203-C (2015). 16 See e.g., Minn. Sentencing Guidelines Comm n, Probation Revocations at 7 (Jan. 2015) (detailing the increase in volume of felony cases sentenced to probation from 2001 to 2012); Mariel Alper et al., American Exceptionalism in Probation Supervision (Robina Inst.of Crim.Law & Crim. Justice 2016), http://www.robinainstitute.org/news/new-data-brief-american-exceptionalismprobation-supervision/(demonstrating that the U.S. probation supervision rate in 2013 was more than five times greater than the rate for European countries). 17 Ctr. for Effective Pub. Policy, Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (2014), https://www.fppoa.org/sites/default/files/dosage.pdf. 18 Am. Prob. And Parole Ass n, Probation and Parole FAQs Qs. 8-9, citing communication from Carl Wicklund, https://www.appa-net.org/eweb/ DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=VB_FAQ#8.
Months Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission Length of Stayed Sentences: Sentenced 2008-2012 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) monitoring data are offender-based, meaning cases represent offenders rather than individual charges. Offenders sentenced within the same county in a onemonth period are generally counted only once, based on their most serious offense. Information Requested: Information on the average pronounced probation length by judicial district and/or county. Also, if there are some counties who might keep offenders on probation for over 10 years or so. Analysis: Figure 1 displays the average pronounced length of probation from 2008-2012, by offense type, for offenders sentenced for felony offenses. MSGC has no information on how long offenders actually serve on probation before they are discharged. Probation terms for felony offenses that received misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor sentences are included. 6% of the offenders placed on probation for felony offenses received a M/GM sentence during this period. Criminal sexual conduct offenses received significantly longer probation terms when compared to other offense types. Figure 1: Avg. Pronounced Probation Length by : Felonies Sentenced 2008-2012 160 Avg. Pronounced Probation 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Person Property Drug Other DWI Crim Sex Total Probation 54 61 84 48 77 156 68 Table 1: Pronounced Probation Terms of 120 Months or More: Criminal Sexual Conduct s vs. Other s Criminal Sexual Conduct? Total No Yes 120 No Yes Total 46,525 6,785 53,310 % w/in CSC 87.3% 12.7% 100.0% 447 1,331 1,778 % w/in CSC 25.1% 74.9% 100.0% 46,972 8,116 55,088 % w/in CSC 85.3% 14.7% 100.0% Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 1 of 10
The following set of graphs display the average pronounced probation terms by offense type and judicial district. For example, from 2008-2012, the average pronounced probation term in District 1 was 54 months. While sex offenses have the longest average pronounced probation term, drug offenses have the greatest range, from an average low of 36 months to an average high of 131 months. Figure 2: Avg. Pronounced Probation Term by District for Each Person s Property s 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 54 64 63 57 65 59 63 62 54 38 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 78 65 68 56 69 74 71 61 38 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Drug s DWI s 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 131 105 92 104 89 99 102 67 84 38 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 83 82 80 84 87 83 84 77 60 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 250 200 150 100 50 0 Sex s 157 198 175 153 186 172 166 194 156 81 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Other s 45 51 56 61 52 54 51 52 48 38 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 2 of 10
Table 2 displays the average pronounced length of probation from 2008-2012, by county and offense type, for offenders sentenced for felony offenses. For example, in Aitkin, 33 offenders received a stayed sentence for a person offense. The average pronounced probation length for these 33 offenders was 57 months. Table 2: Avg. Pronounced Probation Term by and : Sentenced 2008-2012 person 57 33 Crim Sex 180 22 property 82 71 Total 92 532 drug 85 31 person 68 3 Aitkin other 51 26 property 77 16 DWI 84 12 drug 88 12 Crim Sex 173 15 Big Stone other 48 5 Total 81 188 DWI 76 3 person 67 603 Crim Sex 210 4 property 67 1,087 Total 88 43 drug 111 789 person 62 182 Anoka other 53 218 property 66 176 DWI 83 130 drug 104 183 Crim Sex 183 86 Blue Earth other 56 72 Total 82 2,913 DWI 84 51 person 69 109 Crim Sex 140 24 property 99 112 Total 78 688 drug 144 105 person 52 20 Becker other 66 42 property 95 45 DWI 84 37 drug 187 48 Crim Sex 150 6 Brown other 56 15 Total 99 411 DWI 76 6 person 62 123 Crim Sex 170 6 property 73 180 Total 119 140 drug 112 165 person 38 99 Beltrami other 56 87 property 36 152 DWI 83 41 drug 35 226 Crim Sex 163 20 Carlton other 33 33 Total 83 616 DWI 48 29 person 60 129 Crim Sex 57 11 property 72 163 Total 37 550 Benton drug 139 156 person 56 113 other 55 42 Carver property 61 164 DWI 84 20 drug 99 112 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 3 of 10
Cass Chippewa Chisago Clay Clearwater other 51 51 DWI 79 18 Crim Sex 164 23 Total 73 481 person 64 137 property 72 146 drug 100 73 other 68 50 DWI 84 41 Crim Sex 188 24 Total 81 471 person 62 24 property 68 39 drug 69 30 other 49 9 DWI 84 4 Crim Sex 90 6 Total 67 112 person 59 108 property 82 189 drug 100 131 other 53 49 DWI 84 25 Crim Sex 176 15 Total 82 517 person 60 204 property 86 161 drug 121 194 other 39 78 DWI 83 66 Crim Sex 210 4 Total 83 707 person 69 21 property 97 47 drug 79 25 other 63 12 DWI 84 6 Crim Sex 120 5 Total 85 116 Cook person 50 7 Cottonwood Crow Wing Dakota Dodge Douglas property 40 9 drug 39 7 other 33 4 DWI 62 6 Crim Sex 96 5 Total 52 38 person 46 36 property 46 39 drug 71 26 other 45 17 DWI 60 4 Crim Sex 72 9 Total 53 131 person 63 88 property 71 191 drug 102 267 other 59 65 DWI 84 46 Crim Sex 176 34 Total 87 691 person 54 1,030 property 54 1,699 drug 60 673 other 46 260 DWI 81 169 Crim Sex 158 111 Total 59 3,942 person 50 21 property 77 51 drug 122 37 other 77 12 DWI 83 17 Crim Sex 177 11 Total 92 149 person 53 69 property 69 142 drug 97 89 other 39 14 DWI 84 18 Crim Sex 156 15 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 4 of 10
Total 76 347 DWI 60 411 person 65 37 Crim Sex 81 244 property 72 46 Total 39 10,748 drug 120 23 person 57 59 Faribault other 52 27 property 81 66 DWI 84 10 drug 134 41 Crim Sex 197 14 Houston other 45 18 Total 86 157 DWI 84 13 person 53 26 Crim Sex 231 7 property 84 49 Total 87 204 drug 92 20 person 61 27 Fillmore other 39 13 property 72 81 DWI 84 7 drug 115 97 Crim Sex 180 10 Hubbard other 46 23 Total 82 125 DWI 84 24 person 68 59 Crim Sex 223 7 property 78 67 Total 90 259 drug 110 164 person 58 64 Freeborn other 54 22 property 77 116 DWI 81 14 drug 101 175 Crim Sex 153 11 Isanti other 53 34 Total 93 337 DWI 84 11 person 64 77 Crim Sex 185 13 property 60 122 Total 86 413 drug 62 151 person 62 126 Goodhue other 44 32 property 62 157 DWI 81 32 drug 70 151 Crim Sex 189 23 Itasca other 59 59 Total 68 437 DWI 83 26 person 46 5 Crim Sex 117 39 property 82 12 Total 69 558 drug 89 9 person 78 18 Grant other 60 2 property 72 34 DWI 84 2 drug 156 35 Crim Sex 240 2 Jackson other 88 3 Total 87 32 DWI 84 11 person 38 3,115 Crim Sex 225 8 Hennepin property 38 3,512 drug 37 2,329 other 38 1,137 Kanabec Total 113 109 person 59 87 property 86 81 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 5 of 10
Kandiyohi Kittson Koochiching Lac Qui Parle Lake drug 87 64 other 81 33 DWI 76 3 Crim Sex 198 13 Total 82 281 person 60 106 property 70 227 drug 106 147 other 48 64 DWI 83 18 Crim Sex 204 25 Total 81 587 person 180 2 property 75 25 drug 60 3 other 36 1 DWI 84 1 Crim Sex 144 5 Total 88 37 person 50 16 property 53 34 drug 49 22 other 29 3 DWI 66 4 Crim Sex 132 3 Total 54 82 person 63 4 property 59 24 drug 52 3 DWI 84 2 Crim Sex 120 3 Total 65 36 person 45 22 property 53 42 drug 57 16 other 29 7 DWI 57 7 Crim Sex 110 7 Total 55 101 Lake of the person 60 8 Woods property 54 6 LeSueur Lincoln Lyon McLeod Mahnomen drug 60 8 other 120 1 DWI 84 8 Crim Sex 210 4 Total 83 35 person 61 33 property 86 66 drug 77 28 other 45 22 DWI 81 15 Crim Sex 177 23 Total 86 187 person 52 3 property 57 14 drug 46 6 other 46 6 DWI 52 3 Crim Sex 90 4 Total 56 36 person 58 85 property 61 150 drug 66 75 other 55 29 DWI 78 13 Crim Sex 99 11 Total 63 363 person 41 123 property 37 136 drug 46 69 other 39 51 DWI 66 15 Crim Sex 114 24 Total 45 418 person 59 51 property 72 54 drug 125 30 other 53 24 DWI 80 19 Crim Sex 150 2 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 6 of 10
Total 76 180 DWI 84 16 person 46 14 Crim Sex 165 20 property 82 29 Total 77 698 drug 108 15 person 44 6 Marshall other 56 6 property 59 14 DWI 84 6 drug 58 22 Crim Sex 214 7 Murray other 60 2 Total 91 77 DWI 84 1 person 63 50 Crim Sex 80 3 property 76 81 Total 58 48 drug 109 116 person 59 41 Martin other 45 16 property 83 64 DWI 84 11 drug 155 52 Crim Sex 204 15 Nicollet other 45 16 Total 92 289 DWI 84 10 person 56 44 Crim Sex 217 12 property 68 52 Total 102 195 drug 90 43 person 53 52 Meeker other 60 12 property 63 86 DWI 84 7 drug 72 70 Crim Sex 154 7 Nobles other 56 17 Total 74 165 DWI 77 18 person 62 143 Crim Sex 114 10 property 73 87 Total 66 253 drug 82 116 person 64 17 Mille Lacs other 63 39 property 65 27 DWI 83 23 drug 99 4 Crim Sex 148 15 Norman other 132 5 Total 74 423 DWI 68 3 person 63 74 Crim Sex 192 5 property 78 103 Total 83 61 Drug 109 107 person 65 496 Morrison other 37 21 property 83 454 DWI 84 11 drug 125 332 Crim Sex 162 17 Olmsted other 54 109 Total 86 333 DWI 83 91 person 59 134 Crim Sex 214 50 Mower property 70 316 drug 101 168 other 53 44 Otter Tail Total 89 1,532 person 68 80 property 87 186 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 7 of 10
drug 170 106 person 64 2,188 other 61 53 property 65 2,335 DWI 84 21 drug 92 1,567 Crim Sex 184 21104 Ramsey other 51 567 Total 104 466 DWI 83 192 person 68 36 Crim Sex 198 104 property 76 99 Total 72 6,953 drug 99 51 person 53 5 Pennington other 74 16 property 66 16 DWI 82 15 drug 62 14 Crim Sex 153 11 Red Lake other 76 6 Total 84 228 DWI 82 5 person 78 55 Crim Sex 195 4 property 70 125 Total 77 50 drug 99 126 person 43 67 Pine other 47 34 property 49 60 DWI 84 29 drug 59 74 Crim Sex 240 8 Redwood other 47 18 Total 84 377 DWI 79 9 person 57 13 Crim Sex 103 9 property 59 21 Total 53 237 drug 73 19 person 62 25 Pipestone other 40 3 property 61 39 DWI 70 5 drug 65 36 Crim Sex 80 3 Renville other 62 10 Total 64 64 DWI 72 6 person 67 146 Crim Sex 180 3 property 84 182 Total 66 119 drug 111 187 person 65 143 Polk other 72 68 property 62 130 DWI 83 28 drug 67 182 Crim Sex 203 16 Rice other 52 44 Total 90 627 DWI 73 25 person 50 6 Crim Sex 104 19 property 85 19 Total 66 543 drug 72 28 person 48 2 Pope other 33 4 property 53 18 DWI 72 6 Rock drug 55 10 Crim Sex 210 6 other 36 4 Total 83 69 DWI 68 3 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 8 of 10
Roseau St. Louis Scott Sherburne Sibley Stearns Crim Sex 133 9 Total 68 46 person 60 26 property 81 76 drug 80 23 other 54 16 DWI 83 17 Crim Sex 158 5 Total 77 163 person 37 923 property 36 804 drug 36 670 other 34 214 DWI 52 135 Crim Sex 84 84 Total 38 2,830 person 51 286 property 62 333 drug 74 403 other 45 99 DWI 81 48 Crim Sex 148 48 Total 67 1,217 person 58 193 property 74 270 drug 124 214 other 54 78 DWI 83 35 Crim Sex 199 33 Total 87 823 person 62 37 property 62 38 drug 64 15 other 43 18 DWI 84 5 Crim Sex 156 5 Total 64 118 person 70 528 property 73 581 drug 155 331 Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse other 55 136 DWI 85 61 Crim Sex 206 47 Total 91 1,684 person 59 93 property 66 109 drug 65 81 other 47 51 DWI 85 20 Crim Sex 155 9 Total 64 363 person 60 8 property 80 12 drug 109 11 other 52 3 DWI 84 3 Crim Sex 240 2 Total 90 39 person 59 11 property 71 22 drug 65 18 other 120 2 DWI 84 2 Crim Sex 84 5 Total 70 60 person 70 33 property 84 75 drug 89 44 other 55 17 DWI 84 9 Crim Sex 246 10 Total 89 188 person 54 13 property 81 9 drug 120 2 other 27 4 DWI 84 1 Crim Sex -- 0 Total 65 29 Wabasha person 54 30 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 9 of 10
property 83 57 drug 109 14 drug 100 73 other 30 4 other 96 5 DWI 136 6 DWI 87 13 Total 91 50 Crim Sex 147 11 person 69 135 Total 89 189 property 78 134 person 70 80 drug 125 152 property 81 72 Winona other 71 49 drug 136 38 DWI 81 35 Wadena other 67 21 Crim Sex 162 29 DWI 98 6 Total 93 534 Crim Sex 201 14 person 58 261 Total 93 231 property 80 282 person 61 56 drug 86 200 property 56 50 Wright other 50 67 drug 76 26 DWI 83 32 Waseca other 62 30 Crim Sex 210 71 DWI 81 9 Total 83 913 Crim Sex 300 2 person 54 17 Total 66 173 property 54 33 person 57 403 property 66 684 drug 90 448 Yellow Medicine drug 57 25 other 56 13 DWI 94 5 Washington other 46 217 Crim Sex 92 3 DWI 85 72 Total 59 96 Crim Sex 187 48 person 54 14,323 Total 71 1,872 property 61 18,268 person 52 35 drug 84 13,300 property 85 64 Total other 48 4,944 drug 191 22 DWI 77 2,475 Watonwan other 44 14 Crim Sex 156 1,778 DWI 84 3 Total 67 55,088 Crim Sex 177 20 Total 101 158 Wilkin person 80 6 property 81 20 Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 5/15/2014 Page 10 of 10