My fiancé was sentenced to 5 years probation in 2003. The day before his probation was over Sep. 2nd his P.O. placed him on a probation hold saying that he was in a bar the prior weekend. His 5 year release date from probation was Sep. 3 2008. On Sep 3 his P.O. brought him police reports indicating that he was involved in criminal activity 13 months prior. He currently has no charges for these alleged crimes. He was brought revocation papers the following week, which he is currently fighting. My question is this: can his P.O. stop his probation time when he was placed on a P.O. hold or can only a judge do that. He was sitting in jail on a P.O hold when his actual probation should have been over and the revocation process didn't start until that following week. Is this legal?

He can do it, but the judge will have final say. A judge has to release him from probation, regardless of the time served.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the judge will most likely side with the PO, since the PO is an officer of the court.

If you read his probation papers closely, it will most likely say that he is *eligible* for release from probation on Sep 2. If, for instance, he hasn't paid all restitution or court fees, he won't be released. Also, if his PO says he violated his probation, he won't be released.

But again, this is all up to the judge.

Hello S:

I agree. His probation SHOULD have been over on such and such a date. But, the PO put a "hold" on him prior to that date. Therefore, his probation never ended.

He'll have a revocation hearing in front of the judge, though. Your fiancé will have a much better chance at the hearing IF he has a lawyer.

excon

If your husband didn't do anything wrong, there are no police reports saying that he was involved in a crime, all your probation officer has is "I think you were in a bar", and your husband has had no problems doing what has been mandated by said probation officer, than I disagree with SteveCtg, the judge will dismiss his probation officers notion entirely. As Steve said, the officer can legally put him in jail no problem, but a court wouldn't side with the PO if your husband has done nothing wrong in 5 years that would just be madness. In fact I'm sure that after all is said and done you two could sue the probation officer for false imprisonment.

False imprisonment, is the restraint of a persons liberty of movement, by another party who lacks legal authority or JUSTIFICATION to do so. If your husbands PO is going on opinion alone, and has nothing to prove that he was actually in a bar, this would apply.

I read a case once on two girls in a shopping mall. They were brought to the security office, and told to empty their bags. They said they had not stolen anything and refused the search I believe. Long story short, I remember the two women being held in the building for only 3 hours.

For that 3 hours they (or they're parents) sued, and won lots and lots of money, in the range of 70 thousand dollars if I remember correctly, for just 3 hours. Imagine what you could get if your husband was in jail for a month!

So my conclusion is that, without proof, you not only have a strong case toward getting your husband out of jail and off probation, but against your husbands PO as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upintheskyguy420man

As Steve said, the officer can legally put him in jail no problem, but a court wouldn't side with the PO if your husband has done nothing wrong in 5 years that would just be madness. In fact I'm sure that after all is said and done you two could sue the probation officer for false imprisonment.

---

Hello again, 420:

Couple things..

The post clearly says that his PO has reports of criminal activity 13 months prior, so you need to read a little better. Plus, he has a report that the guy was in a bar last weekend.. I do agree, that if the PO is making it up, then the judge will dismiss it... But, unless the PO is delusional, he has SOME proof...

You also seem to misunderstand the relationship between the probationer and the state. A person on probation is under a criminal sentence from the court. He doesn't have the presumption of innocence that a free citizen has. In this instance, that means the PO doesn't have to PROVE his allegations at all. An anonymous phone call might be enough do the trick.

Finally, your suggestion that they could sue for false imprisonment is utterly ridiculous.

excon

I read the part that said there were "reports", but reports could just as well mean an anonymous phone call, or that there was no phone call at all. Its easy enough to say that you've heard your probationee was in a bar, and even if he was in a bar, I don't believe that would be enough to put the husband in jail.

If there were reports of criminal activity 13 months prior, it is an extremely good argument that the probation officer would've brought up said criminal activity at the time it was supposedly committed.

That's why it all sounds like smoke. Unfortunately if there is a statute of limitations on the matter he likely didn't pass it, but doesn't change the fact that a probationer is not doing their job to wait over a year to report a crime.

If all the probationer said was "criminal activity", and didn't point to any crime at all, then that also sounds fishy to me.

From what I'm understanding it is all smoke, and if there never was such an anonymous phone call, people have (as the case I read about the two girls in the mall shows) been sued for less.

From what your saying, it would be completely legal for every probation officer in the world to just throw their client in jail for as long as they see fit, based on their own judgements and opinion, which offers more power than a Judge himself, and doesn't make a lick of sense.

Who says the PO doesn't simply hold a grudge?

You can tell me that I'm wrong about this, but that would mean that you are delusional. I can read just fine, and am not doubting the probationers ability to throw the husband in jail, just to do it (assuming) there are no real reports, or proof there ever was a report.

From what you say, a person could say to the husbands probation officer "I think he killed the person I saw murdered in the paper last week", and when the probation officer asks why they think that, and they say, "I don't know, I just have a feeling", the PO could throw them in jail.

Doesn't make any sense. Maybe the husband doesn't have a presumed innocence, but if he's already done everything he is supposed to in order to be released from probation, then he is making an effort. Suppose the husband said "I will get off probation whether you believe me or not" and the PO didn't like it, and didn't want to be proved wrong.

There are a lot of grudgeful hateful, and otherwise not good people out there, and you of all people know that there aren't any restrictions on probationer officers to be good people. Some of them can be just as caniving and devious as their clients.

A person doesn't generally stay on probation 5 years and then go to the bar when they know they're not supposed to.

On the other hand, even if they did, for being put through 5 years of probation, and if doing all that is asked of them by the PO, I say they deserve and have earned going to the bar to have a drink, as long as they don't start a bar-fight, or get completely hammered and be an .

Even if the husband was in a bar, we have no information telling us, report or otherwise, that he was drinking.

And why would there not be any charges if the police were involved. That would mean that neither PO or police were doing their job at the time.

For a person to be guilty of a crime they must be charged with it first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upintheskyguy420man

For a person to be guilty of a crime they must be charged with it first.

---

Hello again, up:

For a person to be violated, he doesn't need to be charged... You don't seem to get that, which is fine with me. I'm not going to address the rest of your what if's. In fact, ALL your arguments, are what if's.

I knew from the git that arguing with you would be futile. So, I'mna stop now.

excon

And I'll leave it at the fact that if there's no real reports a judge will dismiss it, and agree to disagree.

And not all my arguments are what ifs, in my post about probation I used FACTs to argue my point.

Excon is correct, a PO has a significant amount of power and discretion.

I would also say that, at least from my experience the Judge will go with the PO's recommendation.

A VOP hearing will be held at which time the JUDGE will decide what to do with the person on probation. The Judge will hear everyone and then decide.

Only a Judge can terminate your probation - no one else has the authority. Even if you're one day away from formal termination and you mess up your probation a formal VOP hearing will be held at which time you tell the Judge your side and the PO tells their side. Then the Judge decides.

There is no such thing as suing the PO for holding you against your will in jail. You need to reread the probation paperwork that was signed at the time the probation started to see the rules they and you must play by.