Executive Chair Award
![](/sites/default/files/2023-05/exeuctive_director_award_2023.jpg)
Mark Patterson
Oregon
Mark Patterson currently serves as the Deputy Compact Administrator for the Oregon Department of Corrections. Mark oversees the Compact operations for Oregon’s 36 Counties, as well as the Earned Discharge, Family Alternative Leave and Short Term Trans Leave programs for the ODOC. Mark is currently serving as the West Region Chair for the DCA Liaison committee for the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. Mark has been serving in the DCA position for over 7 years and prior to this role was a Prison Term Analyst.
Comments
New York State is in support of the change proposed to Rule 5.108 – Probable Cause Hearing in Receiving State. The current language in Rule 5.108 requires a receiving state to take an individual into custody, and to hold the individual in custody, upon determining there is probable cause to believe that the individual committed the alleged violation(s). In most instances, the sending state has not issued a warrant prior to the hearing being conducted and probable cause being found. Therefore, States without the authority to make warrantless arrests find themselves in violation of the compact rules. The proposed language change from ‘shall’ to ‘may’ will allow states who are able to make warrantless arrests to place an individual in custody if they choose and would excuse a state without those powers from doing so.
This Rule Amendment was discussed with Nebraska's State Council on 4-21-2023 and some issues were raised that the Council wishes to bring to the Rule Committee's attention for consideration:
(1) Clarify who in the receiving state determines the "may". The Justification states that holding an offender in custody following the outcome of a probable cause hearing or signed waiver should be at the discretion of the hearing officer or authority in the receiving state in accordance with local procedures. Without providing clarification of who the "authority" refers to in the receiving state may leave it open to interpretation as to who makes this determination.
(2) Should it apply to those states whose laws are in conflict with the Rule?
Washington is in support of the proposal because the current language requires a receiving state to take an individual into custody but not all states have "powers of arrest", so this places them in violation according to the rule language. Replacing "shall" with "may" resolves this issue.
Nevada supports the language change as it will allow for more flexibility to recall offenders who may not be a public safety risk, but violations may still constitute a return to the sending state for adjudication. This will allow for institutions to have a significant cost savings by not having to provide unnecessary housing. Additionally, this will allow for the offender to make arrangements for their return to the sending state.
Maryland supports the proposal to change the language in Rule 5.108(f) from shall to may.
<p>Illinoi supports the proposed language change for Rule 5.108(f) from shall to may.</p>
While Ohio understands that states may not have arrest authority, I don't believe that this is the solution to that problem. Allowing increased flexibility can lead to potential abuse of the rule as originally intended. The intent for an OVR as BRR is indicative that behavior rises to the level of revocation in your state. If you are unable/unwilling to house a violator in custody after PC is established, it calls into question the legitimacy of the public safety concerns surrounding the individual. Most states have a hard enough time holding offenders in custody as it is and adding language that makes it easier for a jail to dispute holding someone in custody can lead to unintended consequences.
Idaho agrees with Ohio, the language should not be changed as this gives way to community safety issues on the cases that we are requesting PC Hearings. Idaho only holds PC Hearings if the sending state requests or if the Idaho officer feels the probationer/parolee is a threat to the community and PC findings per Rule 5.108 (f) allow for holding until the sending state retakes.
Texas supports the proposed language. It allows flexibility and still permits the receiving jurisdiction to issue a warrant for public safety concerns, however we look forward to more discussion on the topic.
I have concerns with giving discretion on whether violators should be held in-custody in the receiving state. What if the sending/receiving state disagrees on location of the supervisee? Who will decide that the supervisee will be held in custody? If the receiving state releases someone that the sending state wants to extradite, will the receiving state be required to place the person in custody? How would it look if the receiving state is unable or unwilling to locate the person that needs to be in extradited? The change from shall to may will have an effect on extraditing people. The current language gives some teeth to the compact office staff on enforcing the custody of supervisees with local authorities that don't want to house people that should be held in custody. The change will open the flood gates for jails to refuse to house compact supervisees which will make it more difficult for compact staff.
ND presented the Rule Proposal to our State Council and several issues were identified:
Giving the option to not arrest and not hold clients after probable cause is found takes away the authority used to hold a client pending retaking.
If a client is not brought into custody and we send our transport unit to complete the retaking, how will sending states be assured they will be able to retake? There is no mention in the proposal regarding the receiving states responsibility to ensure the person is available for retaking. A key component to the retaking process is knowing where to send our transport unit, with peace of mind they will be there. If they are not where they say they are, whose responsibility is it to “locate” the person to take them into custody at that time.
With the increased cost of retaking we can’t afford to send staff with the potential of not being able to retake and waste resources.
Issues with “discretion” – how do you allow that type of discretion when each state/office/district is run so differently.
WV Agrees with the State of Ohio, changing this language here although it would give flexibility it would open the floodgates for those jails or local authorities to resist not following the ICOTS Rules now by NOT holding the offender until the process has been completed. This language gives the compact staff and DCA the necessary teeth to enforce the compact and the spirit of the compact in regards to the number one thing that compact was meant or designed for which is public safety and the safety of the victims of the crimes in which they are being placed under supervision for.