PROBATIONER ‑- RETURN OF ‑- COSTS -- INTERSTATE COMPACT ‑- DUTY OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES

PROBATIONER ‑- RETURN OF ‑- COSTS --INTERSTATE COMPACT ‑- DUTY OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES

The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles has jurisdiction to return to this state a person on probation under a suspended sentence, who has been permitted by the board to return to her home state under the interstate compact, and there violated the terms of her probation.

The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles shall be required to pay all costs of returning to this state a probationer who has violated her probation in a compact state.

                                                                 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                              September 21, 1954

Honorable Charles O. Carroll
Prosecuting Attorney
King County
County City Building
Seattle 4, Washington                                                                                                              Cite as:  AGO 53-55 No. 319

Dear Sir:

            We have your letter of September 1, 1954, in which you ask the following questions in reference to the case of State v. Kathryn M. Kerr, King County Superior Court No. 27797:

            (1) What authorities shall be required to return to this state a probationer under a suspended sentence, who was permitted to return to her home state by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, and violated the conditions of her probation while in that state?

            (2) Out of what funds shall the expenses of such return be paid?

             [[Orig. Op. Page 2]]

            It is our opinion that the parole officer, acting under the supervision of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, shall be required to make the return and that the Board shall pay the cost of the return out of funds allocated for that purpose.

                                                                     ANALYSIS

            The order suspending imposition of sentence by the superior court of King county in the case ofState v. Kathryn M. Kerr, was apparently rendered under the following sections:

            RCW 9.95.200:

            "After conviction by plea or verdict of guilty of any crime, the court upon application or its own motion, may summarily grant or deny probation, or at a subsequent time fixed may hear and determine, in the presence of the defendant, the matter of probation of the defendant, and the conditions of such probation, if granted:  Provided, That probation shall not be granted to any person who is not eligible under the law to receive a suspended sentence.  The court may, prior to the hearing on the granting of probation, refer the matter to the board of prison terms and paroles or such officers as the board may designate for investigation and report to the court at a specified time, upon the circumstances surrounding the crime and concerning the defendant, his prior record, and his family surroundings and environment.  * * *"

            RCW 9.95.210:

            "The court in granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that such suspension may continue for such period of time, not exceeding the maximum term of sentence, except as hereinafter set forth and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine.

            "* * *The court shall order the probationer to report to the board of prison terms and paroles or such officer as the board may designate and as a  [[Orig. Op. Page 3]] condition of said probation to follow implicitly the instructions of the board of prison terms and paroles.  The board of prison terms and paroles will promulgate rules and regulations for the conduct of such person during the term of his probation."  (Emphasis supplied)

            The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles then, acting under the authority vested in it by RCW 9.95.270, the interstate compact, allowed the probationer to return to her home in Nevada.  When the board takes jurisdiction over the person, it has the complete duty of supervision of the probationer under the statutes quoted above.

            When a probationer has violated the terms of his probation, the state parole officer under whose supervision the probationer has been placed, shall cause the probationer to be brought before the court wherein the probation was granted, under RCW 9.95.220, which provides, in part:

            "Whenever the state parole officer or other officer under whose supervision the probationer has been placed has reason to believe such probationer is violating the terms of his probation, * * * he shall cause the probationer to be brought before the court wherein the probation was granted.  For this purpose any peace officer or state parole officer may rearrest any such person without warrant or other process."

            The interstate compact is established by RCW 9.95.270 and provides in part as follows:

            "* * *

            "(3) Thatduly accredited officers of a sending state may at all times enter a receiving state and there apprehend and retake any person on probation or parole.  For that purpose no formalities will be required other than establishing the authority of the officer and the identity of the person to be retaken.

             [[Orig. Op. Page 4]]

            All legal requirements to obtain extradition of fugitives from justice are hereby expressly waived on the part of states party hereto, as to such persons.  * * *"  (Emphasis supplied)

            Under this statute, it is not necessary to obtain extradition proceedings to return a probationer from a compact state.  In re Pierce v. Smith, 31 Wn. (2d) 52, 195 P. (2d) 112 (1948).  Under RCW 9.95.270 (3) only duly accredited officers of a sending state may enter a receiving state and retake the probationer.  State probation officers work under the supervision of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles.  RCW 9.95.250.  Being solely administration officers, their jurisdiction is strictly confined to that granted by statute.  They are given jurisdiction and thereby become duly accredited officers of the State of Washington under RCW 9.95.220, which gives them the power to rearrest and retake a probationer when he has violated the conditions of his probation.  Therefore, it is our opinion that the state parole or probation officer is the one to retake and return the probationer to the court, and the cost of such transportation should be paid out of the funds of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles.

Very truly yours,

DON EASTVOLD
Attorney General

EDWARD M. LANE
Assistant Attorney General