Members Only

Legislative Updates, Department Policies, and more.

Join POPAI

Individual and Corporate Memberships

Corporate Members

POPAI President Letter: Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council

on June 26, 2015 by Linda Brady, POPAI President

Dear POPAI Membership:   I sent the letter below to all Indiana Chief Probation Officers on June 26, 2015.

 

Dear Chief Probation Officers:

I am sending this email to all Indiana Chief Probation Officers including CPOs who are not POPAI members.

As you are aware, HEA 1006 (of 2015) created the Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council.  [See link to HEA 1006 Criminal justice funding     HEA 1006 Criminal justice funding ]

One of the nine members of this council is the president of the Probation Officers Professional Association of Indiana or the president’s designee.  The executive director of the Indiana judicial center (Jane Seigel) serves as chairperson of the advisory council.

The Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council (JRAC) held an organizational meeting on June 17th.  I attended this meeting along with the POPAI Treasurer Christine Kerl.

The group received preliminary drafts of materials related to applications for the expanded Community Corrections Grants (as described in HEA 1006).  The draft materials included a proposed Community Corrections Adult Services Grant Amendment Form for the new funds related to HEA 1006 and a proposed County Collaboration Plan Form.

JRAC members were specifically asked to not share these preliminary draft materials with our Boards or membership until after the Council convenes for its first official meeting on July 1, 2015.

JRAC members have been asked to provide the Council with concerns and questions from our respective constituencies.

I am asking all Chief Probation Officers who oversee Adult Probation to please send me your questions and concerns about the funding related to HEA 1006.  This includes questions and concerns about: 1) the expanded Community Corrections Grants; 2) the new money appropriated for Veterans Problem Solving Courts ($5000,000/year to the Indiana Judicial Center); and 3) the new Mental Health and Addiction Forensic Treatment Services Grants.

I need these questions and concerns by noon Tuesday June 30th so that I can compile them for the July 1st JRAC meeting.

Thank you for your help.

Linda Brady,  POPAI President

 

Indiana Probation officer charged with misconduct

Full Article

The Lebanon Reporter on June 17, 2015 by Staff Report The Lebanon Reporter

A Boone County Community Corrections official has been charged with five felony counts of official misconduct.

Paula R. Davis, Whitestown, allegedly stole thousands of dollars from the agency, by falsifying receipts and doctoring records, according to court documents. Davis was the operations coordinator for community corrections. She was put on paid administrative leave.

 

Salem man’s attempt to skip court (probation hearing) foiled by poorly written letter

Full Article

WKBN27 on June 24, 2015 by WKBN Staff

SALEM, Ohio (WKBN) – A Salem man tried to get out of a probation hearing by using a doctor’s excuse that police said he wrote himself.

This is what was written in the letter:

My name is Dr wong . I have Troy Hightland in Akron general . He was Brot up here because his throat was a size of a golf Ball. he can’t talk we have him on an I.V.. we are Keeping hin untill June 24th. He will be out we hope. He is sleeping most of the time. Sorry I did not have time to tipe this out I have a lot of pasients today

Thank you
Dr wong

Troy Hightland, 30, of West Wilson Avenue, faxed the handwritten letter to the Columbiana County Municipal Court on June 10. The letter came from a Dr. Wong and had several spelling errors, including “patients” and “type,” according to our print partner, the Lisbon Morning Journal.

drwongletter

States Try To Remove Barriers For Ex-Offenders

Full Article

Stateline on June 18, 2015 by Rebecca Beitsch

 

Raymond Daughton has been out of prison for 36 days. When he got out he was homeless, had no clothes and no money.

All his belongings from his old apartment have disappeared. Daughton, 31, doesn’t want to get into trouble again, so he is staying out of his old neighborhood—one of the roughest parts of Baltimore—and distancing himself from some friends.

The past month has been a struggle of moving from couch to couch, scrounging some cash for a suit and tie, and applying for as many jobs as he can. Getting a job consumes him. He doesn’t care what he does; he just wants to earn enough money to gain custody of his two boys and support them.

But he’s worried no one will want to hire someone with a conviction for handgun possession who also served a previous prison sentence.

Indiana Supreme Court State v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk

Full Article

Indiana Supreme Court on June 9, 2015 by Supreme Court Justice Brent E. Dickson

On June 8, 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the partial denial of a man’s request to suppress drug evidence found during a routine warrantless search of the residence he shared with a man on probation. The probationer only consented to searches based on reasonable suspicion.

Defendant Brishen Vanderkolk lived with Jordan Sullivan, who was on home detention under community corrections when corrections officers went to his residence to conduct a routine warrantless search. Officers found illegal drugs in a common area shared by the two men, and they found drugs and paraphernalia in each man’s bedroom. Vanderkolk, charged with various drug-related offenses, moved to suppress all evidence found, arguing that it was found based on an improper search. The trial court only granted his motion regarding evidence found in his bedroom.

The Court of Appeals affirmed last year, but the justices reversed inState of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk, 79S04-1411-CR-718, ruling the evidence found in the bedroom also should have been suppressed.

The state claimed that based on Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006), the suspicionless search was authorized under the Fourth Amendment because of Sullivan’s community corrections status. It also claimed that Sullivan consented to the searches when he signed the community corrections handbook.

Samson involved a person on parole, and the decision did not authorize suspicionless searches based on a parolee’s status alone, Justice Brent Dickson wrote. He also noted that in the handbook, it says that Sullivan would consent to the search of his home “at any time without prior notice to search upon probable cause.” The ensuing search and seizures were thus unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and the resulting evidence must be suppressed, the justices held.

It is possible, however, for a probationer or community corrections participant, pursuant to a valid search condition or advance consent, to authorize a warrantless premises search without reasonable suspicion and be subject to such searches during the period of the probationary or community corrections status, Dickson wrote.

Justice Robert Rucker concurred in result without separate decision. The case is remanded to grant the motion to suppress in its entirety.