Probation Tolling Repealed

I’ve mentioned the big legislative changes pending in HB 642 (the Justice Reinvestment Act, which was discussed in House Appropriations this morning), but I haven’t written about an important criminal bill that’s already been signed into law. It’s Session Law 2011-62 (HB 270), Amend Conditions of Probation, which the Governor signed on May 3.

The law makes multiple changes to the Probation article of Chapter 15A. It amends G.S. 15A-1343(b)(2) (regular condition #5 on the judgment form), which required probationers to “remain within the jurisdiction of the court.” There was always some confusion about what that condition meant by jurisdiction, though case law and Division of Community Corrections (DCC) policy interpreted it to mean the entire State of North Carolina (as I discussed in this post). The new law removes any confusion by striking “jurisdiction of the court” and replacing it with a requirement that probationers remain “accessible to the probation officer by making the defendant’s whereabouts known to the officer,” and that they “not leave the county of residence or the State of North Carolina” unless granted permission by the court or the probation officer. So now all probationers—not just those subject to intermediate punishment and therefore bound by the special intermediate condition set out in G.S. 15A-1343(b4)—are required to remain within their county of residence.

The new law adds new regular condition G.S. 15A-1343(b)(16), requiring all supervised probationers to “[s]upply a breath, urine, or blood specimen for analysis of the possible presence of prohibited drugs or alcohol when instructed by the defendant’s probation officer for purposes directly related to the probation supervision.” You might recognize that as old (as in, pre-2009) special condition #15, which was never codified in the General Statutes but was ordered so frequently that it earned a spot on the judgment form. When warrantless searches were added as default condition special condition #15 dropped off the form, but there was some question (discussed in this post) as to whether random, suspicionless drug screens were covered under the language of the warrantless search condition alone. Under the new law there’s no doubt that a probationer must provide a specimen when instructed.

The new law also adds some special conditions directed at street gangs as they are defined in G.S. 14-50.16(b) and strikes the regular condition in G.S. 15A-1343(b)(11) requiring that all supervised probationers tour a facility maintained by the Division of Prisons. (The bill did not, however, amend G.S. 15-205, which obligates probationer officers to, within the first 30 days of a supervisee’s probation, “take such person to a prison unit maintained by the Department of Correction for a tour thereof so that he may better appreciate the consequences of probation revocation.”)

The biggest change of all, though, is so short and sweet that you might just miss it if you read the bill too quickly. Down at the bottom of Page 3 it says “G.S. 15A-1344(g) is repealed.” What’s G.S. 15A-1344(g)? It’s the probation tolling law—the law that said pending charges for anything other than a Class 3 misdemeanor “toll” a period of probation until the charges are resolved.

Tolling has been a big deal for DCC over the past few years. The law had been on the books since the 1970s, but DCC’s tolling policy changed in late 2008 in response to the way the court of appeals interpreted the law in a couple of cases (as discussed here). It changed again in 2009 when the legislature moved the relevant statutory provision from G.S. 15A-1344(d) to G.S. 15A-1344(g), and also provided that if a probationer’s case was tolled for a new charge that resulted in an acquittal or dismissal, he or she would receive credit for the time spent under supervision during the tolled period. There are over 23,000 probationers in tolled status right now. In other words, 1 out of every 5 probationers has pending charges and is on a treadmill with respect to the length of his or her period of probation.

Tolling sometimes made it difficult for Probation and probationers alike to figure out when a period of supervision would expire. But though it could be a pain administratively, tolling could sometimes be the State’s best friend when questions arose about whether the court still had jurisdiction over a case. For instance, many absconders who have been out of touch for years turned out still to be on probation because a pending charge had tolled their case.

I have heard it said that the new law’s repeal of tolling just gets us back to where we were before DCC changed its operational policies in 2008. I don’t think that’s quite the case. Without tolling, it will be especially important for probation officers to file violation reports before a period of probation expires so the court can have authority over the case under G.S. 15A-1344(f). That’s the provision—sometimes also referred to as tolling, but which I generally refer to as holding open—that gives the court jurisdiction to conduct a hearing after expiration. An important distinction between holding open and tolling, though, is that the former simply gives the court power to act, whereas the latter actually kept the offender under supervision by a probation officer. When a case is held open by the filing of a violation report, supervision must cease when the expiration date arrives.

Tolling was also particularly handy when a person’s only alleged violation was a new criminal offense. In some parts of the state there is a flat-out rule against considering a pending charge as a probation violation before the defendant has had his or her day in court on the charge itself. (I wrote about that issue in this post.) With the tolling law in place, the State could always wait for the new criminal case to run its course without any fear of losing power over the probation matter; as long as the charge remained the probation clock was stopped. Without tolling, probation officers will probably want to go ahead and file a probation violation report so the case can at least be held open under G.S. 15A-1344(f). Otherwise, if the criminal case doesn’t get resolved before the period of probation expires, the court will have lost jurisdiction to do anything at all about the probation—even if the criminal charge results in a conviction.

The new law is effective December 1, 2011, and applies to “persons placed on probation on or after that date.” I’m told that might be changed through a technical correction so I won’t say much else about it for now, but it does appear that the tolling law will still apply to people already under supervision.

12 thoughts on “Probation Tolling Repealed”

  1. This seems to be a catch 22 . I hope that a serious look at the consequences are for such a law. It really seems to be unfair to the person on parole if they become subject to waiting on parole and are innocent. if the clock is stopped that will prolong the wait for the individual to go forth and become a productive citizen

  2. As a probation officer, I would like to say thank God the tolling law has been changed! This has caused more confusion in our office than I would like to admit. I felt it was unfair and completely agree with Johnnie Tucker. I have seen this happen first hand.

  3. I am very displeased. I was informed I am being tolled from north Carolina. I now live and have lived in Kentucky since 2009. I have been out of prison in NC since then, bought a house, got married, graduated with an associates degree, and have worked in the same place since 2009. The charge I got to be tolled was driving on DUI suspended license. It is equal to driving on suspended in North Carolina. I have not been convicted, and my court date is at the end of the year. I find this to be very unconstitutional being penalized for a charge in which I am not convicted. I have reformed, all except for one time driving to work and getting a ticket. I have been trying to get my license back for quite some time. I just want to move on.

  4. What is NC Law about if a person make 10 years for his crime for arm robbery. Then come out and put on three years probation. Then violate his probation in the 18 months of the 36 months. Then after his released he also have to go to a Half Way House for 6 months. The he was send back to prison for additional 18 months to finish his 36 months. How or why should he have to be made to do additional 18 months supervised probation? That just don’t seem fair. His violation was dirty urine. He have been on good behavior since he return back to Federal Prison do that help any?

  5. “What is the NC law” unfortunately comes down to “what can you afford to stay out of prison.”
    Justice is a commodity like any other. If you drive a 2011 Mercedes 500 SL your chances of being pulled over for “suspicious activity” is far less than than if you are in a rusted 1995 Monte Carlo. Fairness does not come into the equation.

    • That’s because 2011 Mercedes 500 SL’s aren’t typically trolling known drug areas, most folks use rusted 1995 Monte Carlo’s for that activity.

  6. The changes to the “remain within the jurisdiction” condition discussed in the second paragraph of this post were undone by a technical correction in S.L. 2011-412.

  7. This toll law is so unfair, it seems that its just a way to keep you tangled in the system. I went to see my probation officer today and she told me that I do not get my credit back for a bogus charge that was dismissed and took 5 months to end. Not only do I still have to pay for those 5 months in toll status, I got that time tagged on to my probation extending it 5 months and have to pay for that too. How is this right when the charges were dismissed? I am still being punished for something I did not do! What this means is that anyone can charge you with anything, and if you dont have the money to handle it quickly, you are screwed!

  8. I have a question about the N.C. 90-96 first time felon charge probation.. Does anyone know anything about what happens when the subject did not complete it; did not have a suspended sentence and now has to go back to court. supposedly the public defender said another year of probation (supervised of course) and the felony on the record. when the person is trying to move up to Pennsylvania for better care and therapy for their child… would the court system just let him take the felony since it’s on his record and complete the move???? PLEASE I HOPE SOMEONE READS AND RESPONDS!!!! THANKYOU

  9. i have an question on if someone is on supervised probation and has no access to another ones room which has a safe with locked up guns inside. Which is a big fireproof safe in parents room and no kids or anyone allowed in room. Is an probation officer allowed to go in this locked room?? Don’t the parents have rights to?? What it is our daughter 21 never been in trouble until now is on supervised po and they suspect us to give up our guns. What about our rights and safety???


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.