In reading the Dallas Morning News article referenced on the first page of this web site addressing probation revocations, they listed testing positive for drugs as a "technical violation" similar to not reporting and failure to pay. Are there really legislators out there who believe using illegal drugs while on probation amounts to a "technical violation", or is that just the spin coming from the media?

I'm wondering what counties are having any luck revoking probationers for "technical" violations of probation? I can tell you it's darn sure not Polk County!!! It's not uncommon at all here to have to go through two, three, sometimes four motions to revoke or adjudicate before we can get someone into the pen. By that time, we've modified probation two or three times and have been through surveillance probation, intermediate sanction facilities, restitution centers, jail as a condition of probation, SAFPF and on and on and on.

So I wish the culprits among us who are responsible for this prison overcrowding "problem" would speak up and accept responsibility for their actions. Who out there is getting their judges to revoke folks right out of the box for positive UA's and failure to pay fees??? Identify yourselves so the Legislature can hold you accountable!!!

While I understand there may be sanctions to be considered in probation revocations based on positive UA's, How can that be considered a "technical violation"? The Def. has obviously committed another crime by being in possession of the substance prior to ingestion...maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand the logic. If you want to say that using such drugs will not be a violation for which you can revoke a probation, that's one thing, but to call it a "technical violation" when another crime has been committed seems strange to me.

Apparently there are news reporters & legislators who think "technical violation" equates with "minor violation." Not true.

According to our probation dept., a "technical violation" is any violation of the rules of probation other than a new crime. Thus, a sex offender who repeatedly walks past his victim's home, school, and place of business, in violation of a probation requirement that he stay at least 5 blocks away from those places is in technical violation of his probation rules. So is the probationer who refuses to pay restitution, or who refuses to go to drug rehab, or do community service hours, or even report to probation.

The only reason most probationers abide by these conditions of probation is because they know they can be sent to the joint if they violate them. Thus, for probation to really work, those probationers who refuse to abide by the conditions of probation must be subject to pen time. Instead of making probation more useful, the "reforms" that are being suggested will tend to weaken probation's ability to manage probationers, and encourage their rehabilitation.

I suspect that what really motivates some legislators is a desire to avoid spending more money on prisons.

My chief probation officer brought two similar articles to my attention: a January 26 Houston Chronicle editorial and a January 20 editorial in The Huntsville Item masquerading as a news article. Both mirror the Morning News article referenced earlier. His take is that the statistics might be skewed. E.g.: How many cases are revoked on �technicals� where a new offense precipitates the motion to revoke?

A total absconder...one who walks out of the courtroom after his plea and never darkens the door of the probation office is guilty of a technical violation. A probationer who continues to use even after a stint in SAFP, likewise.

We are revoking probationers on technicals like these as well as sex offenders who either have contact with their victims or other children. I understand the impetus for the law is prison crowding but some more thought needs to go into this one. Or maybe we could rent some tents from Joe Arpayo?

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 01-29-05 at .]

I think Robert makes a good point. Just because the only "True" findings might be on a technical violation does not mean a new offense was not committed. There are actually very few offenders who are being revoked purely on the basis of technical violations only (obviously those would include sex offenders, etc.). But there are often times when a new offense is alleged but not actually proved during the hearing because a plea is negotiated or the hearing is greatly simplified by not having to prove up a new offense. Doesn't mean the guy has only technical violations. I agree with everyone else, this just is not happening.