Chapter 1 STATE PENITENTIARY

Sec.

§ 20-101. Establishment and use of penitentiary and rehabilitation centers.

There shall be continually maintained for the care and custody of prisoners in Idaho, correctional facilities, and state rehabilitation centers, for use by the state board of correction located in the county of Ada and at such other places in the state of Idaho as may be determined by the board of correction; provided however that no facility may be acquired except as provided by law. All offenders convicted and sentenced according to law to imprisonment in the state prison, shall be committed to the custody of the state board of correction. All persons convicted of crimes against the laws of this state, and sentenced to confinement in the state prison shall be committed to the custody of the state board of correction, and must, during the term of their confinement, perform such labor under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the state board of correction.

History.

Part of R.S., § 8500 and 1890-1891, p. 21, § 1; reen. 1899, p. 13, § 1; compiled R.C. & C.L., § 8460; C.S., § 9355; I.C.A.,§ 20-101; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 5, p. 425; am. 1971, ch. 331, § 1, p. 1299.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Courses of study prepared by state board of education,§ 33-123.

Mental health facility for dangerously mentally ill prisoners,§§ 66-1301 — 66-1315.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Supreme court reports distributed to library at state penitentiary,§ 1-505.

CASE NOTES

Moot Issue.

Although in light of this section it would appear improper for the board of correction to obtain custody and hold any offender at one of its institutions where the offender has not been both convicted and sentenced in respect to some charge, alleged illegality of the petitioners’ incarceration on death row during the time period from March 18, 1983 to April 4, 1983, pending resentencing as ordered by the supreme court, was a moot issue after the death penalty was again imposed, and denial of petition for habeas corpus was proper. Sivak v. State, 112 Idaho 127, 730 P.2d 1047 (Ct. App. 1986).

Cited

Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

Failure of prisoner to return at expiration of work furlough or other permissive release period as crime of escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 658.

§ 20-101A. Good conduct reduction of sentences.

Each person convicted of an offense against the state, which was committed prior to July 1, 1986, and confined in a penal or correctional institution for a definite term other than for life, whose record of conduct shows that he has faithfully observed all the rules and has not been subject to punishment, is entitled to a deduction from the term of his sentence beginning with the day on which the sentence starts to run as follows:

  1. Five (5) days for each month, if the sentence is not less than six (6) months and not more than one (1) year.
  2. Six (6) days for each month, if the sentence is more than one (1) year and less than three (3) years.
  3. Seven (7) days for each month, if the sentence is not less than three (3) years and less than five (5) years.
  4. Eight (8) days for each month if the sentence is not less than five (5) years and less than ten (10) years.
  5. Ten (10) days for each month, if the sentence is ten (10) years or more.

When two (2) or more consecutive sentences are served, the basis upon which the deduction is computed is the aggregate of several sentences.

In addition, those inmates doing an outstanding job, may be awarded industrial or meritorious goodtime under rules adopted by the state board of correction, not to exceed five (5) days per month.

Inmates performing exceptionally meritorious or outstanding services under rules adopted by the state board of correction may be awarded a lump sum of goodtime. The number of days awarded may not exceed the regulatory maximum.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-101A, as added by 1971, ch. 96, § 1, p. 208; am. 1972, ch. 30, § 1, p. 44; am. 1986, ch. 322, § 1, p. 789.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 1972, ch. 30 declared an emergency. Approved February 28, 1972.

CASE NOTES

— Proper.

Due Process.

Where a statute such as this section permits an inmate to earn goodtime credits, the inmate has a liberty interest in the credits granted, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents deprivation of the credits in absence of due process requirements. Dallas v. Arave, 129 Idaho 819, 933 P.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1997).

Where department provided defendant with notice and opportunity to be heard as required by the safeguards of procedural due process prior to forfeiting 365 days of his accumulated goodtime credits, but rather than taking advantage of the opportunity, defendant invoked his right against self-incrimination and remained silent, there was no violation of substantive due process and such action was not fundamentally unfair because the jury in prosecution for criminal offense of escape determined he absconded from prison out of necessity to protect himself from danger of serious bodily harm. Dallas v. Arave, 129 Idaho 819, 933 P.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1997).

Duration of Fixed Sentence.

For purposes of appellate review, the duration of a fixed sentence is deemed to be the term of the sentence, less the formula reduction available for good conduct under this section. State v. Rutherford, 109 Idaho 1016, 712 P.2d 717 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Bishop, 110 Idaho 689, 718 P.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Cootz, 110 Idaho 807, 718 P.2d 1245 (Ct. App. 1986).

It is inappropriate for a judge to determine the length of a fixed sentence upon the assumption that it will be reduced by the discretionary “good time” available under this section for “inmates doing an outstanding job.” State v. Rosencrantz, 110 Idaho 124, 714 P.2d 93 (Ct. App. 1986).

For the purpose of sentence review, the duration of confinement imposed by a fixed sentence is deemed to be its facial term, less the credit available for good conduct under this section. State v. Lee, 111 Idaho 489, 725 P.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Torres, 112 Idaho 801, 736 P.2d 853 (Ct. App. 1987).

When reviewing a fixed sentence, the Court of Appeals treats the measure of confinement as the term imposed less statutory credit for good conduct allowed by this section. State v. Santos, 112 Idaho 1130, 739 P.2d 429 (Ct. App. 1987).

Because, with respect to sentences for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1986, the legislature eliminated the formula reduction previously available as a matter of right under this section and in its place enacted a narrow system of “meritorious” sentence reduction, any postulated measure of confinement under a fixed sentence can no longer rest upon an assumption that the prisoner will receive a “good time” credit; rather, as to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1986, the entire facial length of a fixed sentence must be treated as the term of confinement for the purpose of appellate review. State v. Amerson, 113 Idaho 183, 742 P.2d 438 (Ct. App. 1987).

Right to Reductions.

Good conduct reductions are not automatic in every case, but the formula reductions prescribed by this section are available as a matter of right to inmates motivated to achieve them. State v. Miller, 105 Idaho 838, 673 P.2d 438 (Ct. App. 1983).

Sentence.
— Improper.

Where the record did not show that the defendant could never be safely returned to society on parole, the fixed life sentence for convictions of first degree burglary and sexual abuse of a child was inappropriate. State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635, 759 P.2d 926 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Proper.

A maximum sentence of a fixed period of five years where the actual period of imprisonment would be approximately three and two-third years, imposed where, following plea negotiations, defendant who was initially charged with assault accompanied by intent to commit a serious felony and with attempted rape entered a plea of guilty of aggravated assault, was not an abuse of sentencing discretion where defendant entered residence with intent to commit burglary and upon confronting victim brandished a gun and threatened her with rape even though defendant had suffered a troubled childhood, the death of his mother, the contribution of alcohol to his behavior and had no prior felonies as an adult and did not physically harm the victim and had compassion when she became ill. State v. Torres, 112 Idaho 801, 736 P.2d 853 (Ct. App. 1987).

A fixed life sentence may be deemed reasonable if the offense is so egregious that it demands an exceptionally severe measure of retribution and deterrence, or if the offender so utterly lacks rehabilitative potential that imprisonment until death is the only feasible means of protecting society. State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635, 759 P.2d 926 (Ct. App. 1988).

Where habeas petitioner claimed that he was not being provided an appropriate calculation of his good time credits, petitioner’s argument that he was being given insufficient good time credit was based upon a false assumption that 10 days per month was equivalent to one-third of the sentence; because not every month had 30 days, 10 days per month did not equate to one-third of the sentence, the good time credit allowed was 120 days per year, not one-third of 365 or 366 days. Lake v. Newcomb, 140 Idaho 190, 90 P.3d 1272 (Ct. App. 2004).

Cited

State v. Fowler, 105 Idaho 642, 671 P.2d 1105 (Ct. App. 1983); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Cors., 595 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984); State v. Heistand, 107 Idaho 218, 687 P.2d 1001 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Grob, 107 Idaho 496, 690 P.2d 951 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Lawrence, 107 Idaho 867, 693 P.2d 1069 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Martinez, 109 Idaho 61, 704 P.2d 965 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Beltran, 109 Idaho 196, 706 P.2d 85 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Thiemann, 109 Idaho 535, 708 P.2d 940 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Storey, 109 Idaho 993, 712 P.2d 694 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Puga, 111 Idaho 874, 728 P.2d 398 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Reinke, 111 Idaho 968, 729 P.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Griffith, 114 Idaho 95, 753 P.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1988); State v. Carrasco, 114 Idaho 348, 757 P.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1988); Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 925 P.2d 399 (Ct. App. 1996); Brandt v. State Comm’n For Pardons & Parole, 135 Idaho 208, 16 P.3d 305 (Ct. App. 2000).

§ 20-101B. Forfeiture of good conduct reduction.

Inmates who fail to observe faithfully the rules of the institution may have goodtime withheld or forfeited under rules adopted by the state board of correction.

Forfeited or withheld goodtime may only be restored by the board of correction or its authorized agent.

Such revocation or forfeiture shall not be made except upon a hearing upon the question of the infraction of the rules charged to such convicted person before the state board of correction or its authorized agent.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-101B, as added by 1971, ch. 96, § 2, p. 208; am. 1976, ch. 32, § 1, p. 69.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1971, ch. 96 declared an emergency. Approved March 11, 1971.

CASE NOTES

Where department provided defendant with notice and opportunity to be heard as required by the safeguards of procedural due process prior to forfeiting 365 days of his accumulated goodtime credits, but rather than taking advantage of the opportunity defendant invoked his right against self-incrimination and remained silent, there was no violation of substantive due process and such action was not fundamentally unfair because the jury in prosecution for criminal offense of escape determined he absconded from prison out of necessity to protect himself from danger of serious bodily harm. Dallas v. Arave, 129 Idaho 819, 933 P.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1997).

Where the department properly informed defendant of the disciplinary offenses with which he was being changed and followed the proper procedures in proceeding against him and gave him an opportunity to be heard as required by this section, he could not claim that due process was not afforded to him, because he voluntarily chose to remain silent at the hearing; therefore, magistrate’s holding that department compiled with due process and properly forfeited 365 days of defendant’s accumulated goodtime credits for the disciplinary escape violation was proper. Dallas v. Arave, 129 Idaho 819, 933 P.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1997).

Cited

State v. Miller, 105 Idaho 838, 673 P.2d 438 (Ct. App. 1983).

§ 20-101C. Furlough — Conditions — Failure to return — Specifically authorized for funerals and accident or illness.

The state board of correction or its designee shall, in its discretion have the power to establish rules and regulations under which an inmate may be privileged to furlough but to remain while on such leave in the legal custody and under the control of the state board of correction.

Before authorizing the furlough of an eligible inmate, the board of correction or its designee shall have said inmate appear before such board or designee and shall interview said inmate. An inmate shall be placed on furlough only when there has been made:

  1. an administrative verification of the reason for which the inmate requests furlough;
  2. arrangements for supervision, maintenance and care while on furlough;
  3. verification that travel arrangements directly to and from the place of destination, with all expenses paid by the inmate or his family; provided however, that in the case of an indigent inmate, said expenses may be satisfied from the inmate welfare fund;
  4. a determination of the leave duration, provided, however, that such leave may not exceed seventy-two (72) hours except in the case of a medical furlough for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of a serious illness or injury;
  5. provision for signing a waiver of extradition;
  6. a determination and establishment in writing of any and all other conditions, terms and incidents requisite to such furlough;
  7. there are no detainers against said inmate; and
  8. said inmate has been classified to minimum custody for a minimum of six (6) months immediately prior to the granting of said furlough and has been recognized for meritorious performance by the board of correction or its delegated authority while so classified to minimum custody, except in the case of a medical furlough for diagnosis or treatment of a serious illness or injury. Medical furlough inmates may be classified to minimum custody for less than a six (6) month period and need not be recognized for meritorious performance.

Condition (8) need not be met when the inmate has been classified to minimum custody and has been released to one of the department of corrections’s [correction’s] community work centers.

The voluntary and wilful failure of any inmate to abide by the terms of said furlough or to return to the state penitentiary prior to or at the expiration of the time allowed for such furlough shall be considered an escape or attempt to escape, as the case may be, from the custody of the state board of correction and shall be punishable pursuant to section 18-2505, Idaho Code.

Furlough is authorized for diagnosis or treatment of a serious illness or injury, funerals, serious illness or accidents of the immediate family of the inmate, family visitation, to seek employment, and such other purposes that contribute to and promote a transition from confinement to the free society.

Immediate family is defined as a mother or father, brothers, or sisters, of the whole or halfblood, a wife or husband, or lawful issue.

The board of correction or its designee shall notify local law enforcement officials in the county where the inmate is to be furloughed a reasonable time prior to placing said inmate on furlough. Such notice shall be in writing, provided, however, that such notice may be oral if exigencies require it. Due consideration will be given to the law enforcement decision. History.

1971, ch. 166, § 1, p. 789; am. 1974, ch. 200, § 1, p. 1519; am. 1981, ch. 53, § 1, p. 81; am. 1995, ch. 34, § 1, p. 52.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion in the first paragraph following subsection (8) was added by the compiler to correct the name of the referenced agency.

§ 20-101D. Meritorious reduction of sentence.

  1. Each person convicted of an offense against the state committed on or after July 1, 1986, sentenced and confined in a state correctional facility for any term other than life, may be awarded a meritorious conduct reduction of their sentence by the director of the department of correction. Meritorious conduct reduction of the sentence may be awarded when an inmate completes an extraordinary act of heroism at the risk of his own life or for outstanding service to the state of Idaho which results in the saving of lives, prevention of destruction or major property loss during a riot, or the prevention of an escape from a correctional facility. The award of a meritorious conduct reduction may be given under rules adopted by the Idaho board of correction. The number of days awarded may not exceed fifteen (15) days for each month sentenced.
  2. For each inmate sentenced for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1986, the director of the department of correction may withdraw a meritorious conduct reduction awarded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section according to rules of the board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-101D, as added by 1986, ch. 322, § 2, p. 789.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Director of department of correction,§ 20-217A.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Because, with respect to sentences for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1986, the legislature eliminated the formula reduction previously available as a matter of right under§ 20-101A and in its place enacted a narrow system of “meritorious” sentence reduction, any postulated measure of confinement under a fixed sentence can no longer rest upon an assumption that the prisoner will receive a “good time” credit; rather, as to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1986, the entire facial length of a fixed sentence must be treated as the term of confinement for the purpose of appellate review. State v. Amerson, 113 Idaho 183, 742 P.2d 438 (Ct. App. 1987).

Cited

State v. Romero, 114 Idaho 92, 753 P.2d 828 (Ct. App. 1988); State v. Griffith, 114 Idaho 95, 753 P.2d 831 (Ct. App. 1988).

§ 20-102. Penitentiary permanent endowment fund.

  1. There is established in the state treasury the penitentiary permanent endowment fund. This fund is perpetually appropriated for the beneficiaries of the endowment. The fund shall be managed and invested by the endowment fund investment board according to law and the policies established by the state board of land commissioners. The fund principal shall forever remain intact. The fund shall be a permanent fund and shall consist of the following:
    1. Proceeds of the sale of lands granted to the state of Idaho by the United States government in the Idaho Admission Bill, 26 Stat. L. 215, ch. 656, known as penitentiary endowment lands, and lands granted in lieu thereof;
    2. Proceeds of royalties arising from the extraction of minerals on penitentiary endowment lands owned by the state; and
    3. Moneys allocated from the penitentiary earnings reserve fund.
  2. Proceeds from the sale of penitentiary endowment lands may first be deposited into the land bank fund established in section 58-133, Idaho Code, to be used to acquire other lands within the state for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the penitentiary endowment. If the land sale proceeds are not used to acquire other lands in accordance with section 58-133, Idaho Code, the land sale proceeds shall be deposited into the penitentiary permanent endowment fund along with any earnings on the proceeds.
  3. Earnings from the investment of the penitentiary permanent endowment fund shall be distributed according to the provisions of section 57-723A, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-102, as added by 1998, ch. 256, § 2, p. 825.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Endowment fund investment board,§ 57-718.

Penitentiary earnings reserve fund,§ 20-102A.

State board of land commissioners, Idaho Const., Art. IX, § 7 and§ 58-101 et seq.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-102, which comprised 1905, p. 406, §§ 1, 2; continued in force R.C., § 17, subd. 69; reen. C.L., § 8469a; C.S., § 9367; I.C.A.,§ 20-201; am. 1994, ch. 180, § 11, p. 420, was repealed by S.L. 1998, ch. 256, § 1, effective July 1, 2000.

§ 20-102A. Penitentiary earnings reserve fund.

  1. There is established in the state treasury the penitentiary earnings reserve fund. The fund shall be managed and invested by the endowment fund investment board according to law and the policies established by the state board of land commissioners. The fund shall consist of the following:
    1. All earnings of the penitentiary permanent endowment fund;
    2. Proceeds of the sale of timber growing upon penitentiary endowment lands;
    3. Proceeds of leases of penitentiary endowment lands;
    4. Proceeds of interest charged upon deferred payments on penitentiary endowment lands or timber on those lands; and
    5. All other proceeds received from the use of penitentiary endowment lands and not otherwise designated for deposit in the penitentiary permanent endowment fund.
  2. Moneys shall be distributed out of the penitentiary earnings reserve fund only to support the beneficiaries of the penitentiary endowment, including distributions by the state board of land commissioners to the penitentiary permanent endowment fund and the penitentiary income fund; provided, that funds shall not be appropriated by the legislature from the penitentiary earnings reserve fund except to pay for administrative costs incurred managing the assets of the penitentiary endowment including, but not limited to, real property and monetary assets.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-102A, as added by 1998, ch. 256, § 3, p. 825.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Endowment fund investment board,§ 57-718.

Penitentiary permanent endowment fund,§ 20-102.

Penitentiary income fund,§ 20-103.

State board of land commissioners, Idaho Const., Art. IX, § 7 and§ 58-101 et seq.

§ 20-103. Penitentiary income fund.

There is established in the state treasury the penitentiary income fund. The fund shall consist of all moneys distributed from the penitentiary earnings reserve fund and from other sources as the legislature deems appropriate. Moneys in the penitentiary income fund shall be used to benefit the beneficiaries of the penitentiary endowment and distributed to current beneficiaries of the penitentiary endowment pursuant to legislative appropriation.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-103, as added by 1998, ch. 256, § 5, p. 825.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Penitentiary earnings reserve fund,§ 20-102A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-103, which comprised 1905, p. 406, § 44; continued in force R.C., § 17, subd. 69; compiled and reen., C.L., § 8469b; C.S., § 9368; I.C.A.,§ 20-202, was repealed by S.L. 1998, ch. 256, § 4, effective July 1, 2000.

§ 20-104. Transfer of convicted foreign citizens or nationals under treaty.

If a treaty in effect between the United States and a foreign country provides for the transfer or exchange of convicted offenders to the country of which they are citizens or nationals, the governor may, on behalf of the state and subject to the terms of the treaty, authorize the commission of pardons and parole to consent to the transfer or exchange of offenders and take any other action necessary to initiate the participation of this state in the treaty.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-104, as added by 1986, ch. 77, § 1, p. 235; am. 2018, ch. 243, § 1, p. 567.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 243, substituted “commission of pardons and parole” for “director of the department of correction” near the middle of the section.

§ 20-105 — 20-110. [Reserved.]

If any prisoner threatens personal injury to any officer, keeper or guard of the state penitentiary or other place maintained by the state board of correction, or acts in such manner as may reasonably lead the officer, keeper or guard to believe his life or the life of any prisoner is in danger, or which leads the officer, keeper or guard, to believe the prisoner is attempting escape, then such officer, keeper or guard, may proceed forthwith to use any weapon he may have to enforce obedience, and if in so doing any prisoner shall be necessarily wounded or killed, the officer, keeper or guard is justified and shall be held guiltless. For purposes of this section, a facility operated by a private prison contractor and housing prisoners pursuant to a contract between the contractor and the state board of correction, as set forth in section 20-241A, Idaho Code, shall be deemed to be maintained by or under the control of the state board of correction.

History.

1949, ch. 143, § 1, p. 251; am. 2010, ch. 351, § 1, p. 915.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 351, throughout the section, substituted “prisoner” for “convict”; in the first sentence, inserted “or other place maintained by the state board of correction”; and added the last sentence.

Effective Dates.

Section 4 of S.L. 2010, ch. 351 declared an emergency and applied to contracts entered into or renewed on and after its passage and approval. Approved April 12, 2010.

§ 20-111. Prisoners in state penitentiary — Justifiable killing or wounding.

Chapter 2 STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION

Sec.

§ 20-201. Department of correction created.

There is hereby created the department of correction which shall consist of the board of correction and the commission of pardons and parole. The department of correction shall, for the purposes of section 20, article IV, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, be an executive department of state government.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-201, as added by 1999, ch. 311, § 4, p. 772.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210.

Prior Laws.

Another former§ 20-201, which comprised S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 1, p. 59; am. 1947, ch. 145, § 1, p. 343, was repealed by § 1 of S.L. 1969, ch. 97.

Compiler’s Notes.

Former§ 20-201, as enacted by S.L. 1969, ch. 97, § 2, was amended and redesignated as§ 20-201A by § 5 of S.L. 1999, ch. 311.

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1999, ch. 311, declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1999.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Idaho Dep’t of Corr. v. Anderson, 134 Idaho 680, 8 P.3d 675 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Moore, 150 Idaho 17, 244 P.3d 161 (2010); In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Idaho Administrative Law: A Primer for Students and Practitioners, Richard Henry Seamon. 51 Idaho L. Rev. 421 (2015).

§ 20-201A. Board created — Appointment — Nonpartisan — Terms — Vacancies — Delegation of authority.

  1. There is hereby created a nonpartisan board of three (3) members to be known as the state board of correction, referred to in this chapter as the board, appointed by the governor to exercise the duties imposed by law. The board shall be the constitutional board of correction prescribed by section 5, article X, of the constitution of the state of Idaho. Not more than two (2) members shall belong to the same political party. Any person appointed a member of the board shall hold office for six (6) years. Vacancies in the membership of the board shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointments are made.
  2. The board may transfer to the commission of pardons and parole any and all authority and power as it deems necessary to fulfill the duties, responsibilities and intent of this chapter and the other duties imposed upon it by law.

History.

1969, ch. 97, § 2, p. 329; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 1, p. 28; am. and redesig. 1999, ch. 311, § 5, p. 772.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 20-201.

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1999, ch. 311, declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1999.

CASE NOTES

Applicability of Rules of Evidence.

The rules of evidence applicable to a judicial proceeding need not be observed at a parole revocation hearing. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

Custody Classification Level.

A pending probation violation claim by the State of Washington did not vest the Idaho courts with any special authority to consider the impact of that claim on defendant’s custody classification level established by the department of correction. Swain v. State, 122 Idaho 918, 841 P.2d 448 (Ct. App. 1992).

Fees and Costs.

Where inmate’s petition alleged violations of due process at the correctional facility operated by the department of correction, it would have been error for the district court to have awarded fees and costs against the department under§ 12-117, since the award could have been made only under§ 12-121. Needs v. Idaho State Dep’t of Cor., 115 Idaho 399, 766 P.2d 1280 (Ct. App. 1988).

State Immunity.

The state department of correction is part of the state and any judgment against the department or its employees acting in their official capacities would be paid out of the state treasury; therefore, the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution barred the inmates’ actions against the prison officials in their official capacities. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1988).

Cited

Ex parte Dalton, 72 Idaho 451, 243 P.2d 594 (1952); Forbush v. Thatcher, 78 Idaho 597, 309 P.2d 203 (1957); State v. Gee, 107 Idaho 991, 695 P.2d 376 (1985); Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988); In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions, § 1 et seq.

C.J.S.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners, § 1 et seq.

ALR.

Censorship of convicted prisoners’ “legal” mail. 47 A.L.R.3d 1150.

Censorship of convicted prisoners’ “nonlegal” mail. 47 A.L.R.3d 1192.

Prison conditions as amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. 51 A.L.R.3d 111.

Pardon as defense to disbarment of attorney. 59 A.L.R.3d 466.

§ 20-202. Interim appointments — Chairman.

In the event of death, removal or resignation of any member of the board, the governor shall appoint some competent person to serve during the unexpired term. The governor shall designate one (1) member of the board to serve as chairman.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 2, p. 59; am. 1998, ch. 270, § 1, p. 899.

§ 20-203. Removal of members — Grounds — Hearing and proceedings.

The governor may not remove any member of the board except for disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Before such removal the governor shall give such member a written copy of the charges against him and shall fix the time when he can be heard in his defense which shall not be less than ten (10) days thereafter. If such member shall be removed, the governor shall file, in the office of the secretary of state, a complete statement of all charges made against such member and his findings thereon, with a record of the proceedings.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 3, p. 59.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Powers of Board.

The state board of correction is the body which has been expressly granted the control, direction and management of the penitentiary of the state of Idaho. The courts do not have jurisdiction to supervise matters of ordinary prison discipline. Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 392 P.2d 279 (1964).

§ 20-204. Political activity of board members or employees restricted.

The members of the board of correction and its officers and employees shall not, at the time of appointment nor during their incumbency of office, serve as the representative, officer, or employee of any political party.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 4, p. 59.

§ 20-205. Qualifications of board or board members.

In the selection of members of the original board, and thereafter as vacancies occur in the appointment of successor member, the governor so appointing shall, so far as same is possible, select the members on the basis of their general background in business and administration.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 5, p. 59; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 1, p. 1160.

§ 20-206. Organization of board — Election of vice-chairman and secretary, terms.

At the first meeting after they have qualified for office, the board shall proceed to organize by the election of one (1) of their members as a vice-chairman and the other as secretary. Such officers shall serve during the succeeding biennium.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 6, p. 59.

§ 20-207. Office of board at penitentiary — Meetings — Quorum — Majority vote.

The state board of correction shall maintain an office at the penitentiary and shall meet at such times and places as may be necessary for the conduct of its business. Meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or a majority of the board but in no event shall they meet less than quarterly. A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and no order of the board shall be valid unless concurred in by at least two (2) of its members.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 7, p. 59; am. 1969, ch. 97, § 3, p. 329.

§ 20-208. Salaries and expenses of board members.

Each member of the state board of correction shall be compensated as provided by section 59-509(q), Idaho Code.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 8, p. 59; am. 1951, ch. 217, § 1, p. 448; am. 1969, ch. 97, § 4, p. 329; am. 1980, ch. 247, § 5, p. 582; am. 2008, ch. 80, § 1, p. 208.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2008 amendment, by ch. 80, substituted “59-509(q)” for “59-509(h)”.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986).

§ 20-209. Control and management of correctional facilities and prisoners — Rehabilitative services — Rules.

  1. The state board of correction shall have the control, direction, and management of such correctional facilities as may be acquired for use by the state board of correction and all property owned or used in connection therewith. The board shall provide for the care and maintenance of all prisoners now or hereinafter committed to its custody. The board may also provide for employment of those prisoners housed at a correctional facility. Nothing in this section creates a right to any employment.
  2. The state board of correction may provide or facilitate research-based rehabilitative services at the discretion of the Idaho department of correction and as resources permit for incarcerated and community-based offenders. The rehabilitative services may include programs for behavioral modification, education, vocational education, sexual offenders, substance abuse, gender responsive programs, and other programs that correctional research supports reduction of risk for offender populations. Nothing contained in this subsection shall create any right to rehabilitative services.
  3. The state board of correction shall have the authority to enter into contracts with private prison contractors for the site selection, design, design/building, acquisition, construction, construction management, maintenance, leasing, leasing/purchasing, management or operation of private prison facilities or any combination of those services subject to the requirements and limitations set forth in section 20-241A, Idaho Code.
  4. The state board of correction shall have the authority to promulgate rules required by law or necessary or desirable to carry out all duties assigned to the department of correction pursuant to the provisions of chapter 8, title 20, Idaho Code, which authority shall include the power and duties to prescribe standards, rules, and procedures for licensure of private prison contractors, to develop and provide, in conjunction with the department of administration, a uniform contract for use by local contracting authorities in contracting with private prison contractors, to review records and historical information of all prisoners proposed to be housed in private prison facilities and to approve or reject the housing of all prisoners, to monitor the status of insurance of private prison contractors, to approve suitable training programs for firearm certification for employees of private prison contractors, and to approve suitable drug testing programs for prisoners housed with private prison contractors. All final decisions by the board shall be subject to review pursuant to the provisions and procedures of the administrative procedure act, chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.
  5. The state board of correction is authorized to provide medical and counseling services to those prisoners who have been exposed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), which causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or who have been diagnosed as having contracted a human immunodeficiency viral disease.
  6. The state board of correction should provide educational and informational services to prisoners housed in Idaho and to its department employees in order to assure that the transmission of HIV within correctional facilities is diminished.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 9, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 6, p. 425; am. 1988, ch. 110, § 1, p. 199; am. 1997, ch. 223, § 1, p. 655; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 12, p. 1177; am. 2011, ch. 29, § 1, p. 71; am. 2020, ch. 223, § 1, p. 655.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Courses of study and vocational training for inmates of penitentiary, education of prisoners,§ 33-123.

Department of administration,§ 67-5701 et seq.

Inmates of penal institutions as witnesses, examination in prison or removal to court,§ 9-711.

Indeterminate sentence,§ 19-2513.

Parole by court prior to sentence,§ 19-2601 et seq.

Restoration of civil rights except political rights,§ 18-310.

Venereal disease, duty to report,§ 39-602.

Venereal diseases, examination and treatment of inmates,§ 39-604.

Voting not permitted by inmates,§ 34-403; Idaho Const., Art. VI, § 3.

Amendments.

The 2011 amendment, by ch. 29, inserted “Rehabilitative services” in the section heading, added subsection (2) and redesignated former subsections (2) to (5) as subsections (3) to (6).

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 223, rewrote subsection (1), which formerly read: “The state board of correction shall have the control, direction and management of such correctional facilities as may be acquired for use by the state board of correction and all property owned or used in connection therewith, and shall provide for the care, maintenance and employment of all prisoners now or hereinafter committed to its custody.”

Compiler’s Notes.

The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2020, ch. 223 declared an emergency. Approved March 23, 2020.

CASE NOTES

Prison Disciplinary Action.

Numerous pro se motions, including motions for a new trial and bond pending appeal, and several handwritten letters submitted to the trial court during the pendency of defendant’s direct appeal were not independent causes of action warranting prison disciplinary action against him under§ 20-209E, proscribing the filing of frivolous or malicious claims. State v. Broadway, 138 Idaho 151, 59 P.3d 322 (Ct. App. 2002).

Cited Shain v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 77 Idaho 292, 291 P.2d 870 (1955); MaHaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 392 P.2d 279 (1964); Burge v. State, 90 Idaho 473, 413 P.2d 451 (1966); State v. Reese, 98 Idaho 347, 563 P.2d 405 (1977); Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

Cited
Medical Costs.

The state is responsible for medical costs incurred by state detention facilities for the examination and treatment of venereal disease, including the detection and treatment of prisoners found to be infected with AIDS.OAG 87-7.

HIV Inmates.

With regard to inmates who are HIV positive, or who have ARC or AIDS, the duty of the Idaho department of correction to inmates and staff is to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of both. No greater liability is created by reasonably restricting access to patient information. In fact, under some circumstances, failure to protect the confidentiality of such information could expose the department to liability.OAG 89-6.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Federal constitutional and statutory claims by HIV-positive inmates as to medical treatment or conditions of confinement. 162 A.L.R. Fed. 181.

§ 20-209A. Computation of term.

When a person is sentenced to the custody of the board of correction, his term of confinement begins from the day of his sentence. The time during which the person is voluntarily absent from the penitentiary, jail, facility under the control of the board of correction, or from the custody of an officer after his sentence, shall not be estimated or counted as a part of the term for which he was sentenced.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209A, as added by 1970, ch. 143, § 7, p. 425; am. 2015, ch. 99, § 3, p. 240.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 99, deleted the former second sentence, which read: “A person who is sentenced may receive credit toward service of his sentence for time spent in physical custody pending trial or sentencing, or appeal, if that detention was in connection with the offense for which the sentence was imposed”.

CASE NOTES

Escapees.

It is entirely illogical that a prisoner who escapes from incarceration should be permitted accrual of time toward his sentences while he is at large. Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989).

Cited

State v. Thomas, 161 Idaho 898, 392 P.3d 1239 (Ct. App. 2017).

§ 20-209B. Duty to control disturbances at state penitentiary.

It shall be the primary duty of the state director of correction, or his designee, to prevent, control and suppress all riots, escapes, affrays and insurrections at the state penitentiary or other place maintained by the state board of correction which come to his knowledge, and to control and suppress all attempts to riot or escape.

The director of correction, or his designee, shall be primarily responsible for all security measures to be taken at the time of any riot, escape, affray or insurrection, or attempts to commit the same, at the state penitentiary or other place under the control of the state board of correction.

Any county sheriff, deputy sheriff or any person so acting, and all other law enforcement officers, shall be subject to the authority herein conferred upon the director of correction, or his designee, and shall be subject to his direction and control during any riots, escapes, affrays, insurrections, or attempts to commit the same, at the state penitentiary or other place maintained by the state board of correction.

Nothing in this act shall preclude the use of any county sheriff or other law enforcement officers by the director of correction during any such existing emergency. If at any such time the director of correction shall find need for the assistance of any county sheriff or other law enforcement officers, the sheriff and such other officers may respond and render assistance at the direction of the director of correction.

For purposes of this section, a facility operated by a private prison contractor and housing prisoners pursuant to a contract between the contractor and the state board of correction, as set forth in section 20-241A, Idaho Code, shall be deemed to be maintained by or under the control of the state board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209B, as added by 1973, ch. 169, § 1, p. 358; am. 2010, ch. 351, § 2, p. 915.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Director of correction,§ 20-217A.

Amendments.

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 351, added the last paragraph.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” in the fourth paragraph refers to S.L. 1973, Chapter 169, which is codified only as this section.

Effective Dates.

Section 4 of S.L. 2010, ch. 351 declared an emergency and applied to contracts entered into or renewed on and after its passage and approval. Approved April 12, 2010.

§ 20-209C. Authority to designate employees as peace officers.

All employees of the state board of correction who receive peace officer certification from the Idaho peace officer standards and training council shall have the authority given by statute to peace officers of the state of Idaho in accordance with the provisions of section 19-5109, Idaho Code. The state board of correction shall have the additional authority to designate other employees to act as peace officers when engaged in transportation of prisoners or apprehension of prisoners or wards who have escaped, or apprehension and arrest of persons who are suspected of having violated the terms and conditions of their probation or parole, or when present with and at the request of a local, state or federal law enforcement officer.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209B, as added by 1973, ch. 170, § 2, p. 359; am. and renumbered, 1979, ch. 205, § 1, p. 588; am. 1980, ch. 99, § 1, p. 219; am. 2005, ch. 131, § 3, p. 417; am. 2011, ch. 28, § 2, p. 70.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2011 amendment, by ch. 28, deleted “classified” following “designate other” near the middle of the second sentence, and inserted “or when present with and at the request of a local, state or federal law enforcement officer” at the end of the first sentence.

§ 20-209D. Forfeiture of contraband property or money found in possession of inmates.

The state board of correction, or its designee, shall have the authority to confiscate contraband money found in the possession of the inmates and thereafter deposit the money in the department of correction receipts account, and to dispose of other contraband property found in possession of inmates by donation to a nonprofit organization.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209D, as added by 1979, ch. 205, § 2, p. 588; 1983, ch. 223, § 1, p. 618; am. 1989, ch. 213, § 1, p. 522.

§ 20-209E. Prison disciplinary action for frivolous or malicious court proceedings.

  1. In any action, whether filed in state, federal or administrative court, in which a prisoner submits a frivolous or malicious claim, or knowingly testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to the court, the prisoner may be subject to prison disciplinary action. Such disciplinary action may be initiated upon the court’s finding that:
    1. The prisoner has filed a claim that is frivolous or malicious;
    2. The prisoner filed a claim solely to harass the party;
    3. The prisoner has knowingly testified falsely or otherwise knowingly submitted false evidence or information to the court; or
    4. The prisoner has committed a fraud upon the court.
  2. In the absence of a finding by the court under subsection (1) of this section, and upon review and recommendation by the office of the attorney general, a disciplinary hearing may be held by the appropriate authority at the prison, pursuant to section 5, article X of the constitution of the state of Idaho, to determine whether the prisoner has filed a claim that is malicious or intended solely to harass the party, or has testified falsely or otherwise presented false evidence or information to the court.
  3. Upon a finding of guilt under either subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the prisoner shall be subject to prison disciplinary detention and loss of privileges consistent with established prison disciplinary procedures.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209E, as added by 1996, ch. 420, § 3, p. 1398.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Attorney general,§ 67-1401 et seq.

§ 20-209F. Warrants for certain fugitives.

  1. The director of the department of correction or his designee shall have the authority to apply to the magistrates division of the district court of Ada county for a warrant for the arrest, detention and return to custody of any person committed to the custody of the department of correction under a judgment of conviction who, prior to satisfying the full term of his judgment of conviction and sentence, has either:
    1. Escaped or absconded from the custody or supervision of the department; or
    2. Been released for any reason by the department or by any law enforcement agency, department of correction or other agency in this state or another state.
  2. The magistrate shall issue a warrant upon submission by the director or his designee of an affidavit that:
    1. Identifies the person sought;
    2. Demonstrates that such person has been committed to the custody of the department of correction under a judgment of conviction; and
    3. Demonstrates that, prior to satisfying the full term of his judgment of conviction and sentence, the person sought has either:
      1. Escaped or absconded from the custody or supervision of the department; or
      2. Been released for any other reason by the department or by any law enforcement agency, department of correction or other agency in this state or another state.
  3. Any person who is arrested and detained pursuant to this section shall be ineligible for bond, bail or release on his own recognizance.
  4. Any person arrested and detained pursuant to this section shall have the right to a hearing to confirm that:
    1. He is the person identified in the warrant; and
    2. An unsatisfied portion of his judgment of conviction and sentence remains to be served.
  5. A warrant issued pursuant to this section shall remain in effect until:
    1. The warrant is quashed by order of a court;
    2. The person identified in the warrant is returned to the custody of the department of correction; or
    3. The sentence of the person identified in the warrant is otherwise deemed satisfied.
  6. The issuance of a warrant pursuant to this section shall not negate or interfere with the issuance of warrants under any other provision of law.
  7. A warrant issued pursuant to this section shall be sufficient for any peace officer to arrest, detain and return to the custody of the department of correction any person described in the warrant. It shall be the duty of all peace officers to execute the warrant in the same manner as ordinary process and to return any person arrested pursuant to this section to the custody of the department of correction.
  8. A person who is detained pursuant to a warrant issued under this section may apply for an order quashing the warrant. An action to quash a warrant issued under this section may be brought in Ada county, Idaho or in the county in Idaho in which a person arrested under such a warrant is detained. A warrant issued under this section shall be quashed upon a showing that the person sought or detained is not the person identified in the warrant or that the person’s sentence has been completed or has otherwise been deemed satisfied. History.

I.C.,§ 20-209F, as added by 2002, ch. 130, § 2, p. 360.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Director of department of correction,§ 20-217A.

§ 20-209G. Authority to investigate and issue subpoenas.

  1. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
    1. “Correctional facility” means any prison, correctional facility or mental health facility operated by the department of correction and any public or private correctional facility in which department of correction prisoners are housed pursuant to contract, including a county jail;
    2. “Department of correction prisoner” means any person housed in a correctional facility who has been committed to the custody of or who is under the supervision of the department of correction by way of a judgment of conviction or court order, including the following:
      1. Prisoners committed to the department to serve criminal sentences;
      2. Persons committed in relation to their fitness to proceed at trial pursuant to section 18-212, Idaho Code;
      3. Prisoners over whom a court has retained jurisdiction pursuant to section 19-2601 4., Idaho Code;
      4. Prisoners serving discretionary jail time as probationers or parolees;
      5. Parolees arrested pursuant to sections 20-227 and 20-228, Idaho Code, and are awaiting a determination regarding violation or revocation of their parole;
      6. Civil commitments pursuant to section 66-329, Idaho Code; and
      7. Persons committed to the Idaho security medical program pursuant to section 66-1301, Idaho Code.
    3. “Documents” means any writings, charts, records, recordings, electronic records or data, photographs, tangible things, drawings or diagrams of any sort whatsoever.
  2. In furtherance of the duties set forth in this chapter and department of correction rules, the director of correction shall have the authority to:
    1. Investigate crimes, criminal enterprises or conspiracies, violations of state law or administrative regulations, disturbances, riots and the introduction of contraband into a correctional facility, where such activities involve department of correction prisoners;
    2. Investigate waste, mismanagement of state resources and violations of laws, regulations, policies, directives or procedures by employees of the department of correction; and
    3. Issue subpoenas for the production of documents which may be relevant to such investigations.
  3. If a custodian of documents refuses to produce any document required by a subpoena issued pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the director of correction may petition the district court in the county in which the custodian resides or does business, setting forth by way of sworn affidavit the reasons supporting issuance of the subpoena and why the documents sought are necessary for the investigation, that due notice has been given of the time and place of production of said documents, that the custodian has been properly summoned and that the custodian has failed and refused to produce documents required by the subpoena and may request an order compelling the custodian to produce the documents.
  4. Upon the filing of such petition and affidavit, the court shall enter an order directing the custodian of documents to appear before the court at a time fixed by the court, but not more than ten (10) court days from the date of the order, and to show cause why the custodian has not produced the documents and why he should not be required to produce the documents. The court shall serve a copy of the order upon the custodian. If it appears to the court that the petition is adequately supported by affidavit, the subpoena was regularly issued by the director of correction and regularly served upon the custodian, and that there is not good cause for the custodian’s failure to produce the documents, the court shall order the custodian to produce the required documents at a time and place fixed by the court. If the custodian fails to obey the court’s order, he shall be dealt with for contempt of court.
  5. When documents are sought from a custodian who is not a resident of this state or who has his principal place of business in another state, the director of correction is authorized to obtain subpoenas issued by the clerk of the district court of Ada county. The clerk of the district court shall open a court file, provide a case number and issue the subpoena under the seal of the court. The subpoena shall specify those documents required to be produced.
  6. The department of correction shall cooperate with local law enforcement and other local, state or federal law enforcement agencies during the conduct of any investigation arising out of the powers and duties set forth in this section.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209G, as added by 2009, ch. 45, § 1, p. 126.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Contempt,§ 7-601 et seq.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Director of department of correction,§ 20-217A.

§ 20-209H. Duty to establish inmate accounts — Payment of restitution.

The state board of correction shall establish an account in the name of each inmate confined in a correctional facility. All moneys in the inmate’s possession upon admission, all moneys earned from institutional employment and all moneys received by the inmate from any other source, other than money that is contraband, shall be deposited in the inmate’s account. If the court ordered an inmate to make restitution under section 19-5304, Idaho Code, and the restitution is still owing, then twenty percent (20%) of each deposit in the inmate’s account shall be paid to the state board of correction who shall, within five (5) days after the end of the month, pay such moneys to the clerk of the court in which the restitution order was entered for payment to the victim. The provisions of this section shall apply to any inmate confined in a correctional facility on or after the effective date of this section.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209H, as added by 2014, ch. 150, § 6, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the enactment of this section by section 6 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 is effective March 1, 2015.

§ 20-209I. Assignment of inmates to do conservation work.

  1. Inmates may be assigned to do conservation work on a permanent or temporary basis. The board or its designated agent may, at such times as it deems proper and on such terms as it deems wise, enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with any public agency, state or federal, for the performance of conservation projects that are appropriate and under conditions consistent with policies established by the board.
  2. Inmates may be assigned to perform public conservation projects including, but not limited to, forest fire prevention and control, forest and watershed management, recreational area development, fish and game management, soil conservation, and forest watershed revegetation.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-209I, as added by 2020, ch. 83, § 12, p. 217.

§ 20-210. Commission of pardons and parole — Appointment — Qualifications — Terms — Salary — Staff.

The governor shall appoint a state commission of pardons and parole, each member of which shall be subject to the advice and consent of the senate, in this chapter referred to as the commission, which shall succeed to and have all rights, powers and authority of said board of pardons as are granted and provided by the provisions of the constitution of the state of Idaho.

The commission shall be composed of seven (7) members. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the governor and not more than four (4) members shall be from any one (1) political party.

The members of the commission shall be appointed for the purposes of organization as follows: Members on the commission on the effective date of this act, shall serve out the remainder of their terms; thereafter, as members’ terms expire, the governor shall reappoint them or appoint new members to serve terms of three (3) years; vacancies in the commission for unexpired terms shall be by appointment by the governor for the remainder of the term and all appointees may be reappointed.

The commission and the board may meet as necessary to exchange such information to enable each to effectively carry out their respective duties.

The commission shall meet at such times and places as determined to be necessary and convenient, or at the call of the executive director and in any event no less than quarterly.

Two (2) members of the commission may meet to make decisions on the disposition of parole violations. Such decisions must be unanimous, and in the event they are not unanimous then the parole violation disposition decision will be made by a majority of the full commission either at the next quarterly meeting or special meeting.

Three (3) members of the commission may meet to make decisions to grant or deny parole. Such decisions must be unanimous, and in the event they are not unanimous then the decision to grant or deny parole will be made by a majority of the full commission at the next quarterly meeting.

The members shall be compensated as provided by section 59-509(i), Idaho Code, when attending quarterly meetings conducted at a date and time separate from a hearing session or other meetings approved by the executive director. The members shall receive compensation of three hundred dollars ($300) per member per day when conducting parole, commutation, pardon, revocation or other hearings, and shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses subject to the limitations provided in section 67-2008, Idaho Code.

The governor will liberally allow the reasonable payment for services of such technical and professional advice and consultation as the commission may require. The governor shall appoint the executive director for the commission. The executive director shall be the full-time employee who shall report to, serve at the pleasure of, and be compensated as determined by the governor. The executive director shall be the official representative for the commission, shall be responsible for the managing and administration of daily commission business and shall schedule hearing sessions at times convenient to the members of the commission. For each scheduled session, the executive director shall designate one (1) of the members of the commission as the presiding officer for conducting the hearings. The executive director may hire such staff and employees as are approved by the governor. The executive director shall also have such other duties and responsibilities as the governor shall assign. History.

1947, ch. 53, § 10, p. 59; am. 1969, ch. 97, § 5, p. 329; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 2, p. 28; am. 1980, ch. 247, § 6, p. 582; am. 1991, ch. 166, § 1, p. 406; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 1, p. 382; am. 1998, ch. 355, § 1, p. 1112; am. 1999, ch. 311, § 1, p. 772; am. 2007, ch. 102, § 1, p. 306; am. 2017, ch. 182, § 1, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 102, substituted “two hundred dollars ($200)” for “one hundred fifty dollars ($150)” in the sixth paragraph.

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 182, in the second paragraph, substituted “seven (7) members” for “five (5) members” in the first sentence and substituted “four (4) members” for “three (3) members” in the second sentence; added the present sixth and seventh paragraphs; and substituted “three hundred dollars ($300)” for “two hundred dollars ($200)” in the second sentence of the next-to-last paragraph.

Compiler’s Notes.

The phrase “effective date of this act,” in the third paragraph of this section, refers to the effective date of S.L. 1999, ch. 311, § 1, which was effective March 24, 1999.

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1999, ch. 311 declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1999.

CASE NOTES

Powers of Commission.

The board of pardons [now commission of pardons and paroles], created by the Constitution, has power to remit fines and forfeitures and to grant commutations and pardons after conviction and judgment, and the governor has the power to grant respites and reprieves. State v. Iverson, 79 Idaho 25, 310 P.2d 803 (1957).

The commission of pardons and paroles had authority to add the intensive supervision program conditions to the defendant’s parole without violating the separation of powers doctrine of Idaho Const., Art. II, § 1. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

When the commission of pardons and parole is exercising the parole function, as distinguished from its commutation and pardoning powers, it is exercising powers “delegated to it by the board.” Carman v. State, Comm’n of Pardons & Parole, 119 Idaho 642, 809 P.2d 503 (1991).

Cited State v. Kingsley, 99 Idaho 868, 590 P.2d 1014 (1979); State v. Wilson, 105 Idaho 669, 672 P.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Snapp, 113 Idaho 350, 743 P.2d 1003 (Ct. App. 1987); In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018).

Cited
Majority Vote.

By statute, a majority of the commission of pardons and parole must vote in favor of an inmate parole application before parole can be granted. If two of the five commissioners disqualify themselves, the remaining three must act unanimously in favor of the release.OAG 83-13. (see 2017 amendment).

Open Meetings.

As a statutory entity with authority to make decisions concerning paroles, pardons and commutations, the commission of pardons and parole is subject to the Open Meeting Law and is required to open all meetings to the public except those conducted in executive session.OAG 85-9.

Applicability.

As to sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, February 1, 1987, the commission of pardons and parole may, pursuant to properly enacted rules and regulations, parole an inmate who is serving an indeterminate sentence and who has one or more consecutive sentences remaining to be served; when paroled, such an inmate would have a dual status as a parolee on the first sentence and as an inmate on the consecutive sentence or sentences.OAG 87-9.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Idaho Administrative Law: A Primer for Students and Practitioners, Richard Henry Seamon. 51 Idaho L. Rev. 421 (2015).

§ 20-210A. Commission of pardons and parole — Duties and powers.

The commission of pardons and parole shall:

  1. Have the powers relating to commutation, pardon and remission of fines and forfeitures as set forth in section 7, article IV, of the Idaho constitution;
  2. Subject to and consistent with the provisions of this chapter and section 19-2513, Idaho Code, decide whether any prisoner who is eligible for parole may be released on parole;
  3. Subject to and consistent with the provisions of this chapter and section 19-2513, Idaho Code, and in compliance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, promulgate rules to establish the procedures under which any eligible prisoner may be released on parole;
  4. Specify in writing the conditions of parole for every prisoner released on parole and provide every prisoner released on parole with a copy of the conditions of parole;
  5. Subject to and consistent with the provisions of this chapter, issue orders of final discharge from parole for eligible parolees; and
  6. Carry out all other duties and powers relating to the commission as set forth in Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-210A, as added by 2014, ch. 150, § 7, p. 414.

§ 20-211. Records, funds and property of superseded agencies — Delivery to board of corrections [correction].

From and after the taking effect of this act, the state board of correction shall succeed to and be in possession and control of all records, accounts, books, papers, equipment, supplies, funds, and other property, real and personal, in possession of or under the control of any office, board, commission, agency, deputy or employee herein abolished or superseded. Immediately after notice of the appointment, qualification, and organization of the state board of correction, the director of correction and every other state officer or employee then having in his possession or under his control any property, real or personal, any records, and funds of whatever kind or character for the use and benefit of the penitentiary or the administration thereof, shall proceed to prepare and within ten (10) days thereafter to submit a full and complete inventory of all property and records so held to said board of correction, together with possession of said records and property as said board of correction shall direct.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 11, p. 59; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 3, p. 28.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Director of department of correction,§ 20-217A.

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion in the section heading was added by the compiler to correct the name of the referenced agency.

The phrase “from and after the taking effect of this act” at the beginning of the section refers to the effective date of S.L. 1947, chapter 53, which was effective February 19, 1947.

CASE NOTES

Commutation of Sentences.

Under Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 7, this section, and§ 20-213, the board of correction, acting through the commission of pardons and parole, has the power to commute fixed sentences. State v. Storey, 109 Idaho 993, 712 P.2d 694 (Ct. App. 1985).

§ 20-212. Rules — Authority of board.

  1. The state board of correction shall make all necessary rules to carry out the provisions of this chapter not inconsistent with express statutes or the state constitution and to carry out those duties assigned to the department of correction pursuant to the provisions of chapter 8, title 20, Idaho Code. The board shall fix the time and place of meetings, the order of business, the form of records to be kept, the reports to be made, and all other rules necessary to the efficient management and control of the state penitentiary and all properties used in connection therewith. All rules of the board shall be subject to review of the legislature pursuant to sections 67-454, 67-5291 and 67-5292, Idaho Code, but no other provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, shall apply to the board, except as otherwise specifically provided by statute. When making rules required by this section, the board or the department shall submit the rules to the office of the state administrative rules coordinator, in a format suitable to the office of the state administrative rules coordinator as provided in section 67-5202, Idaho Code, and the board or department shall pay all the fees provided in section 67-5205, Idaho Code. The office of the state administrative rules coordinator is authorized and shall publish the board or department’s rules in the administrative bulletin. Additionally, whenever the board or department desires to amend, modify or repeal any of its rules, it shall follow the procedure provided in this section. All rules, or the amendment or repeal of rules shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication by the office of the administrative rules coordinator. If the board determines that the rules need to be effective at a sooner date, they shall issue a proclamation indicating that the public health, safety and welfare is in jeopardy and, if the governor agrees, the rules shall be effective upon the governor signing the proclamation.
  2. “Rule” as used in this section means the whole or a part of the board of correction or department of correction’s statement of general applicability that has been promulgated in compliance with the provisions of this section and that implements, interprets or prescribes:
    1. Law or policy; or
    2. The procedure or practice requirements of the board or department. The term includes the amendment, repeal, or suspension of an existing rule, but does not include:
      1. Statements concerning only the internal management or internal personnel policies of an agency and not affecting private rights of the public or procedures available to the public; or
      2. Declaratory rulings issued pursuant to statute or the board’s rules; or
      3. Intra-department memoranda; or
      4. Any written statements given by the department or board which pertain to an interpretation of a rule or to the documentation of compliance with a rule. (3) At the same time that the proclamation of rulemaking is filed with the coordinator, the board or department shall provide the same notice, accompanied by the full text of the rule under consideration in legislative format, as well as a statement of the substance of the intended action, to the director of legislative services. If the rulemaking is based upon a requirement of federal law or regulation, a copy of that specific federal law or regulation shall accompany the submission to the director of legislative services. The director of legislative services shall analyze and refer the material under consideration to the germane joint subcommittee created in section 67-454, Idaho Code.

(4) The board or department shall prepare and deliver to the germane joint subcommittee a statement of economic impact with respect to a rule if the germane joint subcommittee files a written request with the board or department for such a statement. The statement shall contain an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the rule, including any health, safety, or welfare costs and benefits. The adequacy of the contents of the statement of economic impact is not subject to judicial review.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 12, p. 59; am. 1999, ch. 311, § 3, p. 772; am. 2000, ch. 228, § 1, p. 641; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 13, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Director of legislative services,§ 67-428 et seq.

State board of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1999, ch. 311 declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1999.

Section 2 of S.L. 2000, ch. 228 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 2000.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988); Waggoner v. State, 121 Idaho 758, 828 P.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1991).

§ 20-213. Meetings as state commission of pardons and paroles — Notice, publication, contents.

The commission shall meet at such times and places as it may prescribe, but not less than quarterly. If applications for pardon or commutation are scheduled to be considered at such meeting, notice shall be published in some newspaper of general circulation at Boise, Idaho, at least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks, immediately prior thereto. Such notices shall list the names of all persons making application for pardon or commutation and a copy of such notice shall immediately, upon the first publication thereof, be mailed to each prosecuting attorney of any county from which any such person was committed to the penitentiary, and provided further that the commission may in its discretion consider but one (1) application for pardon or commutation from any one (1) person in any twelve (12) month period.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 13, p. 59; am. 1951, ch. 118, § 1, p. 273; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 2, p. 1160; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 1, p. 768.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Constitutional power to pardon, Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 7.

CASE NOTES

Commutation of Sentences.

Under Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 7,§ 20-211, and this section, the board of correction, acting through the commission of pardons and parole, has the power to commute fixed sentences. State v. Storey, 109 Idaho 993, 712 P.2d 694 (Ct. App. 1985).

Cited

State v. Snapp, 113 Idaho 350, 743 P.2d 1003 (Ct. App. 1987).

Decisions Under Prior Law

Powers.

Board of pardons is a branch of the executive department of the state government, and its powers and prerogatives, as such, are those of granting clemency to convicted prisoners, and it has no power to increase or extend penalties or punishments, imposed by judgment of the courts. In re Prout, 12 Idaho 494, 86 P. 275 (1906).

Board of pardons may attach such conditions as they see fit to a pardon, commutation, or parole, so long as they are not immoral, illegal, or impossible of performance, provided they are to be kept and performed or complied with during the term for which prisoner was sentenced; but they cannot require convict, who has broken his parole, to undergo imprisonment after the expiration of the time fixed by the judgment of conviction for the termination of such imprisonment, by requiring him to serve an additional time equal to that during which he was out on parole. In re Prout, 12 Idaho 494, 86 P. 275 (1906).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Hearings.

A commutation hearing on inmates with the death sentence may be conducted prior to reprieve by the governor.OAG 84-8.

The commission of pardons and paroles may not conduct a commutation hearing absent a petition submitted by the inmate or on behalf of the inmate.OAG 84-8.

As a statutory entity with authority to make decisions concerning paroles, pardons and commutations, the commission of pardons and parole is subject to the Open Meeting Law and is required to open all meetings to the public except those conducted in executive session.OAG 85-9.

Applicability.

As to sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, February 1, 1987, the commission of pardons and parole may, pursuant to properly enacted rules and regulations, parole an inmate who is serving an indeterminate sentence and who has one or more consecutive sentences remaining to be served; when paroled, such an inmate would have a dual status as a parolee on the first sentence and as an inmate on the consecutive sentence or sentences.OAG 87-9.

The Idaho commission for pardons and parole does have the power to commute a sentence during a fixed term under the Unified Sentencing Act.OAG 94-3.

§ 20-213A. Compliance with open meetings law — Executive sessions authorized — Report required.

  1. All meetings and hearings of the commission of pardons and parole shall be held in accordance with the open meetings law as provided in chapter 2, title 74, Idaho Code, except:
    1. An initial review of an application for a request for parole, pardon, commutation or firearm restoration may be held in executive session. The executive session shall be limited to a decision as to whether a hearing should be granted;
    2. When a hearing is granted, it will be conducted in open session. Pursuant to section 74-206, Idaho Code, deliberations and voting concerning the granting, revoking, reinstating or refusing of paroles; the granting or denying of pardons or commutations; or the granting or denying of firearm restorations shall be made in executive session;
    3. Votes of individual members in arriving at the parole, pardon, firearm restoration or commutation decisions shall not be made public, provided that the commission shall maintain a record of the votes of the individual members as required in subsection (2) of this section; and
  2. A written record of the vote to grant or deny parole, pardon, firearm restoration or commutation by each commission member in each case reviewed by that member shall be made by the commission. The record produced by the commission pursuant to this section shall be kept confidential and privileged from disclosure, provided the record shall be made available, upon request, to the governor or the governor’s representative, the chairman and most senior minority member of the senate judiciary and rules committee and the chairman and most senior minority member of the house of representatives judiciary, rules and administration committee, for all lawful purposes. All committee members and representatives of the governor’s office shall keep such record confidential. Distribution of the report by a commissioner or an employee of the executive director to any person not specifically listed in this section shall be a misdemeanor.
  3. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent any person from obtaining the results of any parole, pardon, firearm restoration or commutation action by the commission without reference to the manner in which any member voted, and the commission shall make such information public information.
  4. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the executive director for the commission or designated staff of the executive director from attending any meeting, including an executive session of the commission of pardons and parole.
  5. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the governor, the governor’s representative, chairman and most senior minority member of the senate judiciary and rules committee and the chairman and most senior minority member of the house of representatives judiciary, rules and administration committee from attending any meeting, including an executive session of the commission of pardons and parole.

[(d)](c) Meetings of less than a majority of the commission to make decisions concerning the grant or denial of parole or the disposition of parole violations as provided in section 20-210, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-213A, as added by 1986, ch. 59, § 1, p. 167; am. 1988, ch. 29, § 1, p. 37; am. 1990, ch. 213, § 14, p. 480; am. 1992, ch. 278, § 1, p. 854; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 2, p. 382; am. 2000, ch. 362, § 1, p. 1199; am. 2017, ch. 58, § 9, p. 91; am. 2017, ch. 182, § 2, p. 414; am. 2017, ch. 217, § 1, p. 532.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Penalty of misdemeanor when not otherwise provided,§ 18-113.

Amendments.

This section was amended by three 2017 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 58, substituted “chapter 2, title 74, Idaho Code” for “chapter 23, title 67, Idaho Code” near the end of the introductory paragraph of subsection (1).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 182, added paragraph (1)[(d)](c).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 217, rewrote the section, adding present paragraph (1)(a).

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1986, ch. 59 declared an emergency. Approved March 19, 1986.

Section 111 of S.L. 1990, ch. 213 as amended by § 16 of S.L. 1991, ch. 329 provided that §§ 3 through 45 and 48 through 110 of the act should take effect July 1, 1993 and that §§ 1, 2, 46 and 47 should take effect July 1, 1990.

Section 2 of S.L. 1992, ch. 278 provided that the act would become effective July 1, 1993.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Acheson v. Klauser, 139 Idaho 156, 75 P.3d 210 (Ct. App. 2003); Leavitt v. Craven, 154 Idaho 661, 302 P.3d 1 (2012).

§ 20-214. Assistants and officers.

The state board of correction shall have power and authority to employ, to specify the training, and to fix the duties of such assistants, officers and other persons necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the department of correction and the property used in connection therewith, for the administration of the parole and probation system, and generally for the carrying out of the provisions of this act, subject to the provisions of chapter 53, title 67, Idaho Code.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 14, p. 59; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 4, p. 28; am. 2001, ch. 16, § 1, p. 20.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

As enacted by S.L. 1974, ch. 6, this section contained a heading which read, “Assistants, officers and guards — Employment competitive examinations, qualifications, compensation.” The subject matter of the latter portion of the heading was deleted by the 1974 amendment.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

§ 20-215. Chairman of board succeeding to powers and duties of warden

Powers and duties. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 15, p. 59; am. 1967, ch. 364, § 1, p. 1052, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 419, § 3.

§ 20-216. Records, reports and statistics.

  1. The board shall keep a record of and require reports from all persons on parole or probation and enforce observance of rules and regulations for parole or probation established by the commission or the courts. It shall prepare and publish reports and statistics relating to probation and parole and it shall submit to the governor, at such times as the governor may direct, but at least annually, a full and complete report of the board and its agents, showing the disposition of all cases coming before the board or the commission and such additional information relating thereto as the governor may request.
  2. The board and the department of health and welfare shall submit a joint report to the legislature by January 15 each year analyzing:
    1. The criminogenic needs of the active population of probationers and parolees;
    2. Current funding available to deliver effective, evidence-based programming to address those needs; and
    3. Any gap in funding to meet the treatment needs of all moderate and high-risk probationers and parolees.
  3. By November 15, 2015, and biennially on November 15 thereafter, the board shall develop and deliver a report to the governor and the legislature on the programs to reduce recidivism that are funded by the state. Subject to the availability of moneys, the board may contract with an independent contractor or academic institution for this purpose. The report shall include an evaluation of the quality of each program and its likelihood to reduce recidivism among program participants and shall include a plan for program improvements by the board. The program evaluations shall ensure that treatment programs are delivering services in a way that aligns with the scientifically based research to reduce recidivism. Program evaluation shall be standardized and a validated program assessment tool shall be used. Each program evaluation shall include a site visit and interviews with key staff, interviews with offenders, group observation and file and material review. The information shall be compiled into a composite score indicating adherence to concepts that are linked with program effectiveness, such as program development, program procedures, staff, offender assessment, treatment processes and programs and quality assurance. Program evaluation should also include feedback to the program concerning strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for better adherence to scientifically based research and the principles of effective intervention.
  4. For the purposes of this section:
    1. “Program” means a treatment or intervention program or service that is intended to reduce the propensity of a person to commit crimes or improve the mental health of a person with the result of reducing the likelihood that the person will commit a crime or need emergency mental health services. “Program” does not mean or include an educational program or service that an agency is required to provide to meet educational requirements imposed by state law or a program that provides basic medical services.
    2. “Scientifically based research” means research that obtains reliable and valid knowledge by:
      1. Employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; (ii) Involving rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; and
      2. Relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations and across studies by the same or different investigators.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 16, p. 59; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 4, p. 1160; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 2, p. 768; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 8, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of health and welfare,§ 56-1001 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, deleted “Board — Power and duties” from the beginning of the section heading; designated the extant provisions of the section as subsection (1); and added the subsequent subsections.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 8 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008).

§ 20-217. Vice-chairman, powers and duties

Consulting psychiatrist for state institutions, expenses and per diem. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, comprising S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 17, p. 59, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 419, § 5.

§ 20-217A. Appointment of director — Salary — Powers and duties.

The board shall appoint a director of correction, referred to in this chapter as the director, of the Idaho state penitentiary whose salary shall be determined and set by the board. The director shall be the chief administrative officer for the board and business manager of the penitentiary and the properties used in connection therewith. The director shall assume all the authority, powers, functions and duties as may be delegated to him by the board.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-217A, as added by 1967, ch. 364, § 2, p. 1052; am. 1969, ch. 97, § 6, p. 329.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 1969, ch. 97 declared an emergency. Approved March 7, 1969.

§ 20-218. Annual reports of receipts and expenditures.

The state board of correction shall annually submit to the governor and the state budget officer a full, true, and correct report of all moneys received and expended by it for correctional services.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 18, p. 59; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 5, p. 28; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 3, p. 768.

§ 20-219. Probation and parole supervision and training — Limited supervision — Rulemaking.

  1. The state board of correction shall be charged with the duty of:
    1. Supervising all persons convicted of a felony placed on probation to the board;
    2. Supervising all persons released from the state penitentiary on parole;
    3. Supervising all persons convicted of a felony released on parole or probation from other states and residing in the state of Idaho;
    4. Program delivery, as “program” is defined in section 20-216, Idaho Code, to all persons under its probation or parole supervision based on individual criminal risk factors and specific needs;
    5. Making such investigations as may be necessary;
    6. Reporting alleged violations of parole in specific cases to the commission to aid in determining whether the parole should be continued or revoked;
    7. Reporting alleged violations of the terms or conditions of probation in specific cases to the court and the prosecuting attorney to aid in determining whether the probation should be continued or revoked;
    8. Preparing a case history record of the prisoners to assist the commission or the courts in determining if they should be paroled or should be released on probation; and
    9. Supervising juveniles convicted as adults with a blended sentence pursuant to and in the manner described in section 19-2601A, Idaho Code.
  2. Any person placed on probation or parole and who has been designated as a violent sexual predator pursuant to chapter 83, title 18, Idaho Code, shall be monitored with electronic monitoring technology for the duration of the person’s probation or parole period. Any person who, without authority, intentionally alters, tampers with, damages, or destroys any electronic monitoring equipment shall be guilty of a felony.
  3. The state board of correction shall have the discretion to determine the level of supervision of all persons under its supervision, except those who are being supervised by a problem solving court. “Level of supervision” includes the determination of the following:
    1. The frequency, location, methods and nature of contact with the supervising officer;
    2. Testing requirements and frequency;
    3. Contact restrictions;
    4. Curfew restrictions; and
    5. Reporting requirements.
  4. Subject to the availability of moneys, caseloads for supervising officers who are supervising offenders determined by the department of correction’s validated risk assessment to be high or moderate risk of rearrest should not exceed an average of fifty (50) offenders per supervising officer.
  5. In carrying out its duty to supervise felony probationers and parolees, the state board of correction shall use evidence-based practices, shall target the offender’s criminal risk and need factors with appropriate supervision and intervention and shall focus resources on those identified by the board as moderate-risk and high-risk offenders. The supervision shall include:
    1. Use of validated risk and needs assessments of the offender that measure criminal risk factors, specific individual needs and driving variable supervision levels;
    2. Use of assessment results to guide supervision responses consistent with evidence-based practices as to the level of supervision and the practices used to reduce recidivism;
    3. Collateral and personal contacts with the offender and community that may be unscheduled and which shall occur as often as needed based on the offender’s supervision level and risk of reoffense and based on the need to stay informed of the offender’s conduct, compliance with conditions and progress in community-based intervention;
    4. Case planning for each offender assessed as moderate to high risk to reoffend; and
    5. Use of practical and suitable methods that are consistent with evidence-based practices to aid and encourage the offender to improve his or her conduct and circumstances so as to reduce the offender’s risk of recidivism.
  6. The state board of correction shall provide all supervising officers with initial and ongoing training and professional development services to support the implementation of evidence-based supervision practices. All supervising officers employed as of the effective date of this section shall complete the training requirements set forth in this subsection on or before July 1, 2016. All supervising officers hired after the effective date of this section shall complete the training requirements set forth in this subsection within two (2) years of their hire date. The training and professional development services shall include:
    1. Assessment techniques;
    2. Case planning;
    3. Risk reduction and intervention strategies;
    4. Effective communication skills;
    5. Behavioral health needs;
    6. Application of core correctional practices, including motivational interviewing, cognitive restructuring, structured skill building, problem solving, reinforcement and use of authority;
    7. Training for supervising officers to become trainers so as to ensure long-term and self-sufficient training capacity in the state; and
    8. Other topics identified by the board as evidence-based practices.
  7. The state board of correction shall promulgate rules in consultation with the Idaho supreme court to:
    1. Establish a program of limited supervision for offenders who qualify addressing eligibility, risk and needs assessments, transfers among levels of supervision and reporting to the court and the prosecuting attorney.
    2. Establish a matrix of swift, certain and graduated sanctions and rewards to be imposed by the board, without the necessity of a hearing, in response to corresponding violations of or compliance with the terms or conditions imposed. Sanctions for violations shall include, but are not limited to, community service, increased reporting, curfew, submission to substance use assessment, monitoring or treatment, submission to cognitive behavioral treatment, submission to an educational or vocational skills development program, submission to a period of confinement in a local correctional facility for no more than three (3) consecutive days and house arrest. Rewards for compliance shall include, but are not limited to, decreased reporting and transfer to limited supervision.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 19, p. 59; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 4, p. 768; am. 1993, ch. 101, § 2, p. 254; am. 2008, ch. 65, § 1, p. 168; am 2014, ch. 150, § 9, p. 414; am. 2015, ch. 113, § 5, p. 281; am. 2017, ch. 182, § 3, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Penalty for felony when not otherwise provided,§ 18-112.

Validated risk assessment,§ 20-224.

Amendments.

The 2008 amendment, by ch. 65, added the subsection (1) designation to existing provision and added subsection (2).

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, rewrote the section heading and the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 113, added paragraph (1)(i).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 182, inserted “without the necessity of a hearing” in the first sentence of paragraph (7)(b).

Compiler’s Notes.

The reference to “a problem solving court” in the introductory paragraph in subsection (3) is to the Idaho drug and mental health courts. See§ 19-5601 et seq.

The two references in subsection (6) to “the effective date of this section” mean the effective date of S.L. 2014, ch. 150, § 9, which was effective March 1, 2015.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 9 should take effect on and after March 1, 2015.

CASE NOTES

Action Against Probation Officer.

Where a motorcyclist was injured in a collision with a drunk driver who was on probation for driving under the influence of alcohol, the motorcyclist had a cause of action against the driver’s probation officer, whose negligent supervision of the driver foreseeably created a potential for harm to those motorists whom the driver would encounter on the state’s highways. Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755 (1986).

Conditions of Parole.

The intensive supervision program conditions of parole authorizing warrantless searches, requiring the payment of fees to defray costs of supervision, restricting the use of alcohol, and establishing a curfew and geographic restrictions were reasonable, were possible to perform, and had an acceptable aim toward rehabilitation. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Obtaining Evidence of Parole Violation.

Although the state laboratory’s confirmation of the urine test may have been sufficient to satisfy a judge, probation authorities were not precluded from gathering additional evidence of use or possession of a controlled substance; therefore, the probation officer’s nonconsensual, warrantless search of the residence was reasonably related to confirming the suspected controlled substances violation, and the district court did not err by refusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search. State v. Molina, 113 Idaho 449, 745 P.2d 1070 (Ct. App. 1987).

Recommendations of Board.

Although only the commission for pardons and parole may impose substantive, rehabilitative conditions of parole, the board of corrections may recommend substantive conditions, and the commission may delegate to its executive director the authority to act in its behalf in approving the board’s recommended parole conditions. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Revocation of Parole.

The commission for pardons and parole’s act of revoking the defendant’s parole for violating conditions recommended by the board of corrections and approved by the commission’s executive director could be inferred as a ratification of the director’s approval. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Supervision of Parolees.

This section when read in connection with§ 20-301(2), can only mean that the legislature intended that the board of corrections would supervise parolees from Idaho penitentiary who remain in Idaho. Pritchard v. State, 115 Idaho 111, 765 P.2d 136 (1988).

As long as defendant was released, the department of correction had the duty of supervising him, and the parole supervision agreement he signed upon transferring to Idaho from Oregon was still in effect; even though on February 22, 1999, the Oregon authorities suspended defendant’s parole, when defendant arrived at the probation and parole office on February 24, 1999, he was still under the department’s supervision, and, pursuant to the parole supervision agreement, the Idaho probation and parole officers had authority to demand that defendant produce a urine sample for analysis, and to search defendant’s vehicle. State v. Fuller, 138 Idaho 60, 57 P.3d 771 (2002).

Warrantless Search.

Where defendant had signed consent to search form as condition of probation, had probation revoked, and then reinstated without signing consent form, he was deemed not to have consented to warrantless search by probation officer. However, even without consent, the search was not in violation of defendant’s rights, as his expectation of privacy was reduced as a probationer, and, as long as there were reasonable grounds, probation officer was justified in conducting warrantless search. State v. Klingler, 143 Idaho 494, 148 P.3d 1240 (2006).

Cited

Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975); Wilson v. State, 133 Idaho 874, 993 P.2d 1205 (Ct. App. 2000); Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008).

§ 20-219A. Impersonating a probation/parole officer, a presentence investigator or correctional officer — Official badge and identification card.

  1. Any person who for himself or as an agent or representative of another in this state who shall unlawfully exercise or attempt to exercise the functions of, or hold themselves out to anyone as, a probation/parole officer, a presentence investigator or correctional officer, whether acting in his own behalf as an official of the court or correction, or as the authorized or unauthorized agent or representative of another, is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or both.
  2. It is a misdemeanor for any person who is not authorized and commissioned by the director of correction, to wear, exhibit or display in public an official badge, official uniform of a correctional officer, or identification card of the department of correction of the state of Idaho, and is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or both.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-219A, as added by 1982, ch. 104, § 1, p. 285.

§ 20-220. Investigation and examination to precede probation or suspension of sentence.

When a probation and parole officer is available to the court, no defendant shall be placed on probation until a written report of investigation by a parole and probation officer shall have been presented to and considered by the court, and no defendant charged with a felony or indictable offense shall be released under suspension of sentence without such investigation. The parole and probation officer shall inquire into the circumstances of the offense, criminal record, social history and present condition of the defendant. Whenever practicable, such investigation shall include a physical and mental examination of the defendant. If a defendant is committed to any institution, the probation officer shall send a report of such investigation to the institution at the time of commitment.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 20, p. 59.

CASE NOTES

Absence of Hearing Request.

In the absence of an explicit request for a formal hearing, the court may reach its sentencing decision by receiving the unsworn formal statements presented by both sides, together with the presentence report and arguments of the respective counsel. State v. Coutts, 101 Idaho 110, 609 P.2d 642 (1980).

Consideration by Court.

Where a presentence report did not recommend probation for defendant who pleaded guilty to charges of possession and delivery of a controlled substance, the failure of the case record to reflect whether trial court considered the report before sentencing defendant was not prejudicial error. State v. Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 550 P.2d 130 (1976).

It is proper for the court to receive and consider a presentence report; the hearing presents an opportunity to challenge or to rebut the report. State v. Cootz, 110 Idaho 807, 718 P.2d 1245 (Ct. App. 1986). Only after the sentencing court has considered a pre-sentence report is the court positioned to make an informed decision regarding the viability of probation. State v. Romero, 116 Idaho 391, 775 P.2d 1233 (1989).

If a defendant is convicted of first degree murder and subject to the death penalty, probation, in all probability, is not a viable alternative; however, the failure to consider a presentence report in such a circumstance would without question constitute reversible error. State v. Romero, 116 Idaho 391, 775 P.2d 1233 (1989).

Disclosure to Defendant.

The trial judge has discretion as to whether the full contents of the presentence report be disclosed to the defendant at the hearing on his application for probation, but, where he chooses not to disclose the report, he is obligated to give the defendant sufficient information concerning adverse matters contained therein so that the defendant may be in a position to offer intelligent refutation. Moreover, where the presentence report is used by the trial judge as the basis for determining the sentence imposed, or where it might otherwise influence the court in arriving at a sentence, full disclosure of the contents of the report must be made prior to any hearing on the sentence, after an application for probation is denied, in aggravation or mitigation of punishment in order to comply with the requirements of the statutes. State v. Rolfe, 92 Idaho 467, 444 P.2d 428 (1968).

A defendant is entitled to challenge the reliability of the hearsay information contained in a presentence report at his sentence hearing, and in order to exercise this right he is entitled to examine the report prior to the sentence hearing and to bring to the court’s attention at the hearing matters contained in the report which he believes to be inaccurate. State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 618 P.2d 759 (1980).

Failure to Conduct.

Where the defendant who pled guilty to robbery admitted at his mitigation hearing that he had been out of prison only three and a half months before he had committed the robbery and had escaped twice from minimum security confinement, the trial court’s rejection of probation as an alternative to incarceration and its imposition of sentence without a presentence investigation was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Roderick, 97 Idaho 82, 540 P.2d 267 (1975).

The failure to order a presentence report (PSR) when the defendant is being considered for probation is per se error. However, the converse is not true, and simply because probation is not an option in a particular case does not mean a sentencing judge may dispense with the presentence investigation. A trial court may forgo a PSR only where (a) the record affirmatively establishes a valid reason therefor, and (b) there is sufficient information from independent sources to enable the sentencing court to fashion an appropriate sentence. State v. Romero, 116 Idaho 391, 775 P.2d 1233 (1989).

Furtherance of Punishment Goals.

There are four goals of criminal punishment: (1) protection of society; (2) deterrence of the individual and the public generally; (3) possibility of rehabilitation; and (4) punishment or retribution for wrongdoing. Without the crucial information provided in such sources as a presentence report, it is impossible for a sentencing court to make an informed decision necessary to promote these four goals. State v. Romero, 116 Idaho 391, 775 P.2d 1233 (1989).

Hearsay Evidence.

The legislature has specifically authorized admission of hearsay evidence for sentencing purposes in the form of a presentence investigation report, under this section; hearsay evidence in this form is admissible at a sentencing hearing so long as the defendant is afforded an opportunity to present favorable evidence and to explain or rebut adverse evidence. Thus, the trial court properly relied on hearsay evidence contained in the presentence investigation report, consisting of a letter written by the defendant outlining his involvement in criminal activities and containing on allegation by a neighbor that defendant had poured glue on their walks and rock salt on their lawn, since the defendant had an opportunity to respond to these allegations during the sentencing hearing. State v. Mason, 107 Idaho 706, 692 P.2d 350 (1984).

In General.

When a trial court receives information from an investigation report, the accused must have a reasonable opportunity to examine such report so that, should he desire, he may explain and defend adverse matters therein. State v. Grady, 89 Idaho 204, 404 P.2d 347 (1965).

Refusal of Court to Conduct.

Refusal of trial court to conduct a presentence investigation of defendant convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses was not erroneous where the defendant made no request for withholding or suspension of the sentence. State v. McCallum, 77 Idaho 489, 295 P.2d 259 (1956).

Time to Consider Application.

Once judgment of conviction is affirmed by court of appeal, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider application by defendant for probation, but must enforce the judgment. State v. Johnson, 75 Idaho 157, 269 P.2d 769 (1954).

Cited

State v. Owen, 73 Idaho 394, 253 P.2d 203 (1953); State v. Gowin, 97 Idaho 146, 540 P.2d 808 (1975); State v. Wallace, 98 Idaho 318, 563 P.2d 42 (1977); State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 670 P.2d 463 (1983); Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986); State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 832 P.2d 1134 (Ct. App. 1992).

§ 20-221. Modification of terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence — Termination of probation.

  1. By order duly entered the court may impose and may at any time modify any terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence. The court shall cause a copy of any such order to be delivered to the board of correction, to the prosecuting attorney and to the probationer.
  2. Any party or the board of correction may submit to the court a request to modify the terms and conditions of probation for any probationer under the board’s supervision at any time during the period of probation. A request to modify the terms and conditions of probation shall be supported by a statement attested to under oath or signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, setting forth the facts upon which the request is based. The requesting party or the board, as the case may be, shall deliver a copy of the request and statement to all parties and to the board. The prosecuting attorney shall notify the victim of the request to modify the terms and conditions of probation. Any responses to a request to modify shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal of the request. The court may, without a hearing, rule upon a request to modify based on a review of the case, the request, the statement and any responses to the request, or may schedule a hearing on the request to modify. The court shall by written order rule on the request to modify within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of the request.
  3. Any party or the board of correction may submit to the court a request to terminate the probation for any probationer under the board’s supervision at any time during the period of probation. A request to terminate probation shall be supported by a statement attested to under oath or signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, setting forth the facts upon which the request is based. The requesting party or the board, as the case may be, shall deliver a copy of the request and statement to all parties and to the board. The prosecuting attorney shall notify the victim of a request to terminate probation. Any responses to a request to terminate probation shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal of the request. The court may, without a hearing, rule upon a request to terminate based on a review of the case, the request, the statement and any responses to the request, or may schedule a hearing on the request to terminate. The court shall rule on the request within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of the request. A court order granting a request to terminate probation under this subsection shall be deemed a final discharge from the remaining period of probation.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 21, p. 59; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 10, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.
Effective Dates.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, inserted “terms or” and “Termination of probation” in the section heading, designated the extant provisions of the section as subsection (1), inserting “terms or” in the first sentence and substituting “board of correction, to the prosecuting attorney” for “probation officer and parole officer” in the second sentence, and added subsections (2) and (3). Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 10 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Extension of Probation.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying defendant’s probation from a term of six years to a term of life, as trial court knew defendant was on probation for delivery of methamphetamine to a minor, defendant violated probation by having sexual contact with a minor, and defendant intended to plead guilty to federal charges of child pornography. State v. Gibbs, 162 Idaho 782, 405 P.3d 567 (2017).

Modification Standard.

The applicable legal standard governing probation modification proceedings is this: If, in the regular course of his or her duties, a judge becomes aware of circumstances constituting good cause for modification of the conditions or duration of probation (whether that be adding or eliminating conditions of probation or extending, reducing or terminating the duration of probation), after notice to the parties and affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, the trial court may modify the terms or duration of probation pursuant to§ 20-222(2) or subsection (1) of this section. State v. Gibbs, 162 Idaho 782, 405 P.3d 567 (2017).

Cited

Franklin v. State, 87 Idaho 291, 392 P.2d 552 (1964); State v. Edelblute, 91 Idaho 469, 424 P.2d 739 (1967); State v. Garcia, 124 Idaho 474, 860 P.2d 677 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Williams, 126 Idaho 39, 878 P.2d 213 (Ct. App. 1994); State v. Dorsey, 126 Idaho 659, 889 P.2d 93 (Ct. App. 1995); State v. Klingler, 143 Idaho 494, 148 P.3d 1240 (2006).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

A.L.R.

§ 20-222. Fixed period of probation or suspension of sentence — Rearrest and revocation.

  1. The period of probation or suspension of sentence shall be fixed by the court and may at any time be extended or terminated by the court. Such period with any extension thereof shall not exceed the maximum period for which the defendant might have been imprisoned.
  2. At any time during probation or suspension of sentence, the court may issue a warrant for violating any of the conditions of probation or suspension of sentence and cause the defendant to be arrested. Thereupon the court, after summary hearing may revoke the probation and suspension of sentence and cause the sentence imposed to be executed, or may cause the defendant to be brought before it and may continue or revoke the probation, or may impose any sentence which originally might have been imposed at the time of conviction. In making a determination to continue or revoke probation and suspension of sentence, the court shall consider the defendant’s risks and needs and options for treatment in the community.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 22, p. 59; am. 1986, ch. 311, § 1, p. 762; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 11, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Indeterminate sentences,§ 19-2513.

Parole by court prior to sentence,§ 19-2601 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, deleted “Indeterminate or” from the beginning of the section heading; added the subsection designations; substituted “shall be fixed” for “may be indeterminate or may be fixed” in subsection (1); and added the last sentence in subsection (2).

Compiler’s Notes.

As enacted, the section heading of this section read “Indetermined or fixed period of probation or suspension of sentence — Rearrest and revocation.”

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 11 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Construction. — Modification standard.

Admission by Defendant.

Defendant’s admission of an alleged probation violation eliminated the issue of whether sufficient evidence had been presented to support a determination that the defendant was in fact in violation. State v. Peterson, 122 Idaho 178, 844 P.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1992).

Conditions of Probation.

Where the conditions of probation were not presented to the defendant in writing and explained to him by the sentencing court or at an early conference with the probation officer, prior to the time the defendant was alleged to have violated the conditions of his probation, the alleged violation of probation could not be the basis of reinstating his sentence. State v. Hancock, 111 Idaho 835, 727 P.2d 1263 (Ct. App. 1986).

Defendant argued there was no affirmative indication that he knew of the probation condition that he not drive his car. However, a defendant’s signature on a probation order indicates that he accepted and certified that he fully understood the conditions of probation. State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 841 P.2d 458 (Ct. App. 1992).

Consent to Search.

Where defendant had signed consent to search form as condition of probation, had probation revoked, and then reinstated without signing consent form, he was deemed not to have consented to warrantless search by probation officer. However, even without consent, the search was not in violation of defendant’s rights, as his expectation of privacy was reduced as a probationer, and as long as there were reasonable grounds, probation officer was justified in conducting warrantless search. State v. Klingler, 143 Idaho 494, 148 P.3d 1240 (2006).

Construction.

The portion of this statute which permits a court to “impose any sentence which originally might have been imposed at the time of conviction” refers only to a revocation of probation following a withheld judgment, while the portion which permits the original “sentence imposed to be executed” refers to a revocation of probation following a suspension of the execution of judgment and sentence. State v. Pedraza, 101 Idaho 440, 614 P.2d 980 (1980).

In a probation revocation proceeding, two questions are posed: (1) Did the probationer violate the terms of his probation? (2) If so, does the violation justify revoking the probation? State v. Hall, 114 Idaho 887, 761 P.2d 1239 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Modification Standard.

The applicable legal standard governing probation modification proceedings is this: If, in the regular course of his or her duties, a judge becomes aware of circumstances constituting good cause for modification of the conditions or duration of probation (whether that be adding or eliminating conditions of probation or extending, reducing or terminating the duration of probation), after notice to the parties and affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, the trial court may modify the terms or duration of probation pursuant to§ 20-221(1) or subsection (2) of this section. State v. Gibbs, 162 Idaho 782, 405 P.3d 567 (2017).

Credit for Time Served.

Where defendant pled guilty to two separate crimes, received two separate sentences, and was serving two separate terms of probation, the state filed a motion to revoke probation, without making any distinction between the two suspended sentences, and the defendant was served with a bench warrant for alleged probation violations associated with each of his sentences, under the plain language of this section, the district court had to grant credit for time served against each suspended sentence. State v. Osborn, — Idaho —, 449 P.3d 419 (2019).

Discretion of Court.

The revocation of probation is discretionary with the court; after sound determination that a probationer could not possibly perform fundamental conditions of his probation, the judge has discretion to remove probation and pronounce sentence. State v. Bell, 103 Idaho 255, 646 P.2d 1026 (Ct. App. 1982).

When a willful violation has occurred, the court has discretionary authority to revoke probation under this section. State v. Fife, 114 Idaho 103, 753 P.2d 839 (Ct. App. 1988).

The district court acted within its discretion when it decided that a defendant’s conduct warranted the revocation of his probation. State v. Drennen, 122 Idaho 1019, 842 P.2d 698 (Ct. App. 1992).

Due Process.

Neither the hearing, where the district court considered the prosecuting attorney’s motion for a writ of mandate to the department of health and welfare, nor the hearing on where judge reconsidered defendant’s sentence, relinquished jurisdiction, and committed defendant to the board of corrections, satisfied the requirements of due process necessary for a probation violation hearing. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 766 P.2d 781 (1988). Throughout probation revocation proceedings, the probationer is entitled to due process; before probation can be revoked, the court must conduct a hearing. State v. Buzo, 121 Idaho 324, 824 P.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1991).

A probationer must be given a due process hearing before probation can be revoked upon satisfactory proof of a violation of a probation condition or “any other cause satisfactory to the court.” State v. Greenawald, 127 Idaho 555, 903 P.2d 144 (Ct. App. 1995).

Lengthening of Probation Period.

It was contemplated, at the time of the original probation order which included a requirement that defendant pay a certain amount in restitution, that a monthly payment schedule would be established thereafter and that the probation terms might be lengthened. The subsequent order specifying the minimum payment did not retract the requirement of full restitution but merely set out a minimum payment plan in accordance with the court’s intent at the time of the initial probation order. Hence, the defendant was incorrect in asserting that complete restitution was not required and that he had satisfied all the conditions of his probation when the court extended the probation term for another seven years. State v. Breeden, 129 Idaho 813, 932 P.2d 936 (Ct. App. 1997).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying defendant’s probation from a term of six years to a term of life, as trial court knew defendant was on probation for delivery of methamphetamine to a minor, defendant violated probation by having sexual contact with a minor, and defendant intended to plead guilty to federal charges of child pornography. State v. Gibbs, 162 Idaho 782, 405 P.3d 567 (2017).

Outstanding Criminal Charges.

Where there are outstanding criminal charges against a probationer which are not formally alleged as violations of probation, it is not error for information concerning those charges to be brought to the court’s attention in probation violation proceedings, so long as the court does not rely upon the pending charges to find that a probation violation has occurred. Such information may be considered by the court as a factor in deciding whether to revoke or continue probation. State v. Bell, 103 Idaho 255, 646 P.2d 1026 (Ct. App. 1982).

Reinstatement of Sentence.

When a trial court has initially sentenced a criminal defendant to a definite term of imprisonment, but has suspended the sentence and granted probation, it may not later upon revocation of probation set aside that sentence and increase the term of imprisonment. State v. Pedraza, 101 Idaho 440, 614 P.2d 980 (1980).

The defendant’s admitted commission of a felony-possession of a dangerous weapon by an inmate was a “cause satisfactory to the court” for revoking the suspended sentence and reinstating the sentence. State v. Hancock, 111 Idaho 835, 727 P.2d 1263 (Ct. App. 1986). Where no motion to reduce the sentence was made under Idaho R. Crim. P. 35, nor was any suggestion made to the judge that under§ 19-2603 he could choose not to reinstate the full ten-year sentence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the remainder of the defendant’s ten-year indeterminate sentence, where the defendant was found to be in possession of a dangerous weapon while in jail. State v. Hancock, 111 Idaho 835, 727 P.2d 1263 (Ct. App. 1986).

In determining whether a court has abused its discretion in revoking probation and imposing a previously suspended sentence, the inquiry is whether the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion, consistent with any legal standards applicable to its specific choices, and whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. The court in making its decision examines whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and is consistent with the protection of society. State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988).

In revoking the probation of a defendant and imposing a previously suspended sentence, the court is only required to act within the bounds of its discretion under this section and to reach its decision by an exercise of reason; it is not required to make a specific finding that defendant could not possibly perform the fundamental conditions of his probation. State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988).

The court of appeals found that the district court had acted within its discretion in revoking defendant’s three-year probation and reinstating the previously suspended sentence of five years fixed; reinstating the full sentence, minus credit for time served, was not an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion. State v. Martin, 122 Idaho 423, 835 P.2d 658 (Ct. App. 1992).

Reinstatement of defendant’s two-year sentence for grand theft was not unreasonable where defendant had a long prior record and had previously absconded from parole in Oregon. State v. New, 123 Idaho 168, 845 P.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1993).

— Reduction at Time of Reinstatement.

The court of appeals has construed Idaho R. Crim. P. 35 to authorize district judges to reduce a sentence which is being reinstated when the reduction is made at the time probation is revoked; therefore, the district court had authority to reduce defendant’s sentence at the time it revoked his probation; because the district judge reduced defendant’s original sentence “upon” revoking his probation, the state’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction was unfounded. State v. Peterson, 121 Idaho 775, 828 P.2d 338 (Ct. App. 1992).

Relationship with Other Laws.

Section 19-2602 conflicts with this section with respect to when probation violation proceedings must be commenced, but, because this section is the latter enacted statute, its provisions control. State v. Ruck, 155 Idaho 475, 314 P.3d 157 (2013).

Retention of Jurisdiction.

The trial court did not have authority to retain jurisdiction a second time, more than 120 days after a sentence to the custody of the board of corrections, following revocation of defendant’s probation. State v. Travis, 125 Idaho 1, 867 P.2d 234 (1994). Trial court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged probation violations, even though a bench warrant was not issued on the probation violations before the probation period expired, because the proceedings commenced when a probation violation report alleging defendant’s possession of illegal drugs was filed in court within the probation period. State v. Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho 274, 270 P.3d 1059 (Ct. App. 2011).

Revocation Hearing.

A probation revocation hearing must be based upon charges sufficiently specific that the probationer be informed of the alleged violated term or condition of the probation order and the manner and circumstances of his violation, so that he can intelligently prepare his defense; he must be allowed to call witnesses under oath, to testify himself and otherwise produce relevant evidence in his own behalf, and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut adverse evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. State v. Edelblute, 91 Idaho 469, 424 P.2d 739 (1967).

Although the defendant did not receive written notice of the alleged violation of probation or cause satisfactory to the court for revoking the suspended sentence before the hearing at which the violation was admitted, he waived his right to notice when he elected to proceed without an evidentiary hearing or a formal affidavit from the Department of Probation and Parole. State v. Hancock, 111 Idaho 835, 727 P.2d 1263 (Ct. App. 1986).

In a probation revocation proceeding two threshold questions are posed: (1) did the probationer violate the terms of probation; and, if so, (2) should probation be revoked? Then, if the court determines that probation should be revoked, a third question arises—what prison sentence should be ordered? State v. Corder, 115 Idaho 1137, 772 P.2d 1231 (Ct. App. 1989).

District court was within its authority to revoke defendant’s probation, even though revocation proceeding occurred outside of the 5 years probationary period imposed, because defendant’s probation was tolled for the two periods between the court’s issuance of warrants for probation violations and when those warrants were served, making the total time defendant spent under probationary supervision less than 5 years. State v. Harvey, 142 Idaho 727, 132 P.3d 1255 (Ct. App. 2006).

Revocation of Probation.

Where probationer admitted his violations, eliminating the issue of whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a determination that he was in fact in violation, and had repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to adhere to very fundamental conditions of probation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and ordering execution of the sentence. State v. Bell, 103 Idaho 255, 646 P.2d 1026 (Ct. App. 1982).

The district court may, in its discretion, revoke probation at any time during the probationary period, if the defendant has violated any of the terms of the probation. State v. Case, 112 Idaho 1136, 739 P.2d 435 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Hall, 114 Idaho 887, 761 P.2d 1239 (Ct. App. 1988).

Possession of a firearm was sufficient, by itself, to prove a violation of probation, where the defendant’s Agreement of Supervision prohibited possession of any firearm or other weapon as set forth by the United States and state statutes, and the district court found that the defendant was informed he could not possess firearms and that he understood the condition. State v. Fife, 114 Idaho 103, 753 P.2d 839 (Ct. App. 1988). In a probation revocation proceeding, the court must decide whether the probationer violated the terms of probation and, if so, whether the probation should be revoked. State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989).

Where defendant had failed to make restitution as scheduled and had been charged, since being on probation, with petty theft and operating a motor vehicle without insurance, revocation of probation was not an abuse of discretion by the district court. State v. McDonough, 120 Idaho 650, 818 P.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1991).

Where prior reinstatements of probation did little to dissuade defendant from abusing alcohol which in turn led to new violations of the law, the revocation of probation by the district court was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Garcia, 124 Idaho 474, 860 P.2d 677 (Ct. App. 1993).

Until a probation was revoked and a sentence of incarceration was executed, the trial court never lost, and the Idaho department of correction never acquired, jurisdiction over a probationer; the trial court’s revisiting of the disposition order was permissible because the reconsideration occurred in what was, in substance, a continuation of the initial disposition hearing. State v. Done, 139 Idaho 635, 84 P.3d 571 (Ct. App. 2003).

Where defendant admitted numerous probation violations, including failing to complete his first required treatment program, using medications contrary to the manner prescribed by a physician, failing to obtain a valid driver’s license, being terminated from a second required treatment program due to poor attendance and violations of his behavior contract, and having contact with another probationer, and defendant was given two opportunities to rehabilitate in the community, but continued to violate his probation, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant’s probation and ordering execution of his original sentence. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App. 2012).

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any term or condition of the probation has been violated, and the decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Cornelison, 154 Idaho 793, 302 P.3d 1066 (Ct. App. 2013).

Before a court reaches the factual predicate as to whether there was an actual probation violation, a determination must be made as to whether the term violated is valid. Then, it is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation, if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. Once a probation violation is established, the district court must then determine whether to revoke or continue probation. In determining whether to revoke probation, a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and is consistent with the protection of society. State v. Leveque, — Idaho —, — P.3d —, 2017 Ida. App. LEXIS 95 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2017).

— Applicability.

The provisions of§ 19-2520 do not govern the court’s decision to revoke probation once a probation violation has been proven; the statute applicable to the court’s discretionary decision after a defendant has violated probation is this section. State v. Drennen, 122 Idaho 1019, 842 P.2d 698 (Ct. App. 1992).

Trial court had no jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation, which had been set at nine years, and execute his original sentence, because the maximum lawful period of probation for felony issuing a check without sufficient funds, three years, had already expired. State v. Kesling, 155 Idaho 673, 315 P.3d 861 (Ct. App. 2013).

— Proper.

Where, in revoking defendant’s probation and imposing a previously suspended sentence, the court noted that this was the third violation of probation by defendant and that he had continued to engage in counter productive acts, including consorting with individuals who made adherence to his probation requirements difficult, there was no abuse of discretion. State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988).

Where the conditions of probation included the requirements that the defendant pay restitution in the amount of $300 per month, that he actively seek out and retain the employment necessary to make his restitution payments, and that he maintain close contact with his probation officer, and the district court specifically found that the defendant had not actively sought or maintained employment and had not paid restitution, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation. State v. Hall, 114 Idaho 887, 761 P.2d 1239 (Ct. App. 1988).

District court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation and ordering execution of his sentence, where defendant violated the terms of his probation twice within a one-year period, where the district court noted that defendant had not responded to probation counseling and was not likely to do so in the future, and where the district court took into consideration defendant’s mental impairments in reaching its decision and retained jurisdiction over defendant for 120 days to further evaluate his mental condition. State v. Fife, 115 Idaho 879, 771 P.2d 543 (Ct. App. 1989).

Where defendant demonstrated a reckless disdain for the authority of the court by repeatedly violating probation conditions, and where even after the trial court sternly warned her to refrain from any conduct not expressly permitted by her probation officer, defendant violated her curfew and engaged in conduct demonstrating a willingness to bring harm upon herself (taking a drug overdose) or upon others (driving under the influence), under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in holding that probation should be revoked. State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989).

Where defendant had a history of previous convictions for lewd conduct with minors and had violated probation on other occasions, although counseling would not be available in custody, the district judge’s ruling was consistent with the often cited primary sentencing goal of protection of society; the district judge had sufficient information to decide that probation was not working and that continued probationary status would endanger the public, particularly young boys. State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1992).

The district court noted in its comments at the probation revocation hearing that defendant had been given a number of prior opportunities to rehabilitate and to overcome his substance abuse problem. The court concluded, however, that defendant’s lack of success with probation, coupled with his propensity for violence, evidenced by his conviction for aggravated assault and his prior conviction of misdemeanor battery, required the revocation of probation. State v. Boss, 122 Idaho 747, 838 P.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1992).

The court concluded that the positive things defendant had done during probation were outweighed by the negative. Defendant was very untruthful in his response to the alleged probation violations, and when defendant committed the burglary in Idaho he was on probation for attempted petit theft in California. State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 841 P.2d 458 (Ct. App. 1992). Where defendant left the jurisdiction without any contact with probation officials and offered no plausible excuse for this conduct and where the district court implicitly determined that defendant’s disregard of the reporting obligation was willful, and considering that he was also wanted on outstanding warrants in other counties for failure to report, the district judge acted within his discretion in revoking defendant’s probation notwithstanding that, at the time of the acts charged as violations, he had successfully completed half of his required probationary period. State v. Peterson, 122 Idaho 178, 844 P.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation where defendant had understood the conditions of his probation but chose to ignore them whenever compliance became inconvenient and repeatedly absconded from probation. State v. New, 123 Idaho 168, 845 P.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1993).

The district court properly took into consideration that defendant had violated his probation twice before the instant violation, which on each occasion was on account of drinking and driving leading to driving under the influence charges; therefore, the order revoking probation and committing defendant to serve his sentence was affirmed. State v. Thomas, 123 Idaho 183, 845 P.2d 1216 (Ct. App. 1993).

The court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked defendant’s probation where defendant’s failure to report to his probation officer made it impossible for the officer to monitor defendant’s living and working circumstances, his conduct, or the type of people with whom he was associating, and without the ability to monitor a probationer’s activities, the state is unable to assure that probationary release is consistent with the protection of society. State v. Chavez, 134 Idaho 308, 1 P.3d 809 (Ct. App. 2000).

Defendant’s revocation of probation on driving under the influence charges was appropriate, where defendant continued to drink alcohol after he was placed on probation and failed to obtain a prescription to help with his substance abuse issues. State v. Hanson, 150 Idaho 729, 249 P.3d 1184 (Ct. App. 2011).

— Sentence Options.

When a court determines that probation should be revoked, if a prison sentence previously has been pronounced but suspended, that sentence may be ordered into execution, or, alternatively, the court is authorized under Idaho R. Crim. P. 35 to reduce the sentence upon revocation of the probation. State v. Corder, 115 Idaho 1137, 772 P.2d 1231 (Ct. App. 1989).

After a probation violation has been proven, the decision to revoke probation and to pronounce sentence lies with the sound discretion of the trial court. Upon revoking probation, the court may order the suspended sentence executed, or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho R. Crim. P. 35 to reduce the sentence. State v. Schorzman, 122 Idaho 201, 832 P.2d 1136 (Ct. App. 1992).

— Untruthful Written Report.

The condition that a probationer file a truthful written report, which included a question as to whether the probationer had contact with law enforcement, was valid as being reasonably related to the rehabilitation; therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation for his failure to provide a truthful report. State v. Jones, 123 Idaho 315, 847 P.2d 1176 (Ct. App. 1993).

Suspended Sentence.

Where a probationer violated the terms of probation and where the court determined that the probation should be revoked, if the probationer is subject to a suspended sentence, the court may order the suspended sentence to be executed, or, alternatively, the court is authorized under Idaho R. Crim. P. 35 to reduce the sentence upon revocation. State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989).

The difference between suspending the imposition of sentence and withholding judgment is that under the former the defendant’s judgment of conviction is entered, whereas in the latter case it is withheld. Peltier v. State, 119 Idaho 454, 808 P.2d 373 (1991).

Trial court possessed authority to impose successive two-year periods of probation for each of defendant’s misdemeanor convictions, regardless of the length of the suspended jail sentences. State v. Horejs, 143 Idaho 260, 141 P.3d 1129 (Ct. App. 2006).

Violation of Probation Terms.

Where defendant, while on probation, drove while intoxicated, drove without privileges, obstructed an officer, repeatedly violated her curfew requirement, left the county without permission, and entered into a prohibited financial agreement in violation of the terms of her intense supervision, the district court’s finding that defendant was in violation of the terms of her probation was fully supported by the record. State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989).

Probation officer instructed defendant not to drive or let anyone else drive defendant’s car until defendant purchased insurance for it. The state proved that defendant let his girlfriend drive it. The court revoked probation and ordered defendant’s sentence be executed. State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 841 P.2d 458 (Ct. App. 1992).

Probation can only be revoked if a violation is willful. Where defendant did not challenge the state’s assertion that he violated the term forbidding him from leaving the Third Judicial District without the permission of his probation officer, an inference of willfulness could be made from defendant’s inconsistent explanations and the district court could reasonably infer that defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation that restricted his travel and his contact with the victim. State v. Garner, 161 Idaho 708, 390 P.3d 434 (2017).

— Time When Probationary Period Begins.

Defendant allegedly violated the terms and conditions of probation before the court had a chance to file a written order; however, because defendant had full knowledge of the terms and conditions of his probation after the court had explained them in open court, defendant’s probationary period began at the time the court announced the terms of probation in open court. State v. Russell, 122 Idaho 515, 835 P.2d 1326 (Ct. App. 1991), vacated on other grounds, 122 Idaho 488, 835 P.2d 1299 (1992).

Cited

The length of a term of probation is the time period established by order of the court pursuant to this section, and the probationary period does not end merely because the financial obligations, such as restitution, fines and court costs, which were made conditions of the probation, have been met. State v. Gallipeau, 128 Idaho 1, 909 P.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1994). Cited State v. Mendenhall, 106 Idaho 388, 679 P.2d 665 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Phillips, 113 Idaho 176, 742 P.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Roy, 113 Idaho 388, 744 P.2d 116 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Lee, 116 Idaho 38, 773 P.2d 655 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Maland, 124 Idaho 830, 864 P.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Williams, 126 Idaho 39, 878 P.2d 213 (Ct. App. 1994); State v. Farmer, 131 Idaho 803, 964 P.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 326, 208 P.3d 730 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 20-223. Parole and rules governing — Restrictions — Psychiatric or psychological examination.

  1. It is the intent of the legislature to focus prison space on those who commit the most serious offenses or who have the highest likelihood of offending in the future, and the commission, consistent with the provisions of this subsection, shall promulgate rules that establish clear guidelines and procedures that retain the commission’s discretion in individual cases.
  2. Subject to section 19-2513, Idaho Code, the commission shall have the power to establish rules in compliance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, under which any prisoner, excepting any under sentence of death, may be allowed to go upon parole but to remain while on parole in the legal custody and under the control of the board and subject to be taken back into confinement at the direction of the commission.
  3. Any prisoner who is granted parole under the interstate compact may be required to post a bond prior to release or prior to such acceptance under the interstate compact; such bond may be posted by the prisoner, the prisoner’s family, or other interested party. Failure to successfully complete parole may be grounds for forfeiture of the bond. Upon successful completion of parole, the amount of the bond may be returned, less an amount for administrative costs as determined by commission rule, in compliance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code. A request must be made for return of the bond within one (1) year of discharge of the offense for which the particular offender was serving parole. Funds collected through the bonding process will be placed in a separate commission receipts fund which is hereby created in the state treasury and utilized for the extradition of parole violators.
  4. No person serving a sentence for rape, incest, committing a lewd act upon a child, crime against nature, or with an intent or an assault with intent to commit any such crimes, or whose history and conduct indicate to the commission that he is a sexually dangerous person, shall be released on parole except upon the examination and evaluation of one (1) or more psychiatrists or psychologists or mental health professionals designated for this purpose by the department of correction to be selected by the commission and such evaluation shall be duly considered by the commission in making its parole determination. The commission may, in its discretion, likewise require a similar examination and evaluation for persons serving sentences for crimes other than those above enumerated. No person making such evaluation shall be held financially responsible to any person for denial of parole by the commission or for the results of the future acts of such person if he be granted parole.
  5. Before considering the parole of any prisoner, the commission shall ensure that a risk assessment has been conducted pursuant to section 20-224, Idaho Code, and shall afford the prisoner the opportunity to be interviewed by the commission, a commissioner or other designated commission staff. A designated report and risk assessment, prepared by commission staff or a designated department of correction employee, that is specifically to be used by the commission in making a parole determination shall be exempt from public disclosure; such reports contain information from the presentence investigation report, medical or psychological information, the results of a risk assessment, victim information, designated confidential witness information and criminal history information. A parole shall be ordered when, in the discretion of the commission, it is in the best interests of society, and the commission believes the prisoner is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen. Such determination shall not be a reward of clemency and it shall not be considered to be a reduction of sentence or a pardon. The commission may also by its rules fix the times and conditions under which any application denied may be reconsidered. No action may be maintained against the commission and/or any of its members in any court in connection with any decision taken by the commission to parole a prisoner and neither the commission nor its members shall be liable in any way for its action with respect thereto.
  6. In making any parole or commutation decision with respect to a prisoner, the commission shall consider the current risk assessment, criminal history, program participation, compliance and completion, institutional misconduct and other individual characteristics related to the likelihood of offending in the future, as well as the compliance of the prisoner with any order of restitution which may have been entered according to section 19-5304, Idaho Code. The commission may make compliance with such an order of restitution a condition of parole.
  7. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no provision of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, shall apply to the commission.
  8. Subject to the limitations of this subsection and notwithstanding any fixed term of confinement or minimum period of confinement as provided in section 19-2513, Idaho Code, the commission may parole an inmate for medical reasons. A prisoner may be considered for medical parole only when the prisoner is permanently incapacitated or terminally ill and when the commission reasonably believes the prisoner no longer poses a threat to the safety of society. For the purposes of this section, “permanently incapacitated” shall mean a person who, by reason of an existing physical condition that is not terminal, is permanently and irreversibly physically incapacitated. For the purposes of this section “terminally ill” shall mean a person who has an incurable condition caused by illness or disease and who is irreversibly terminally ill.
  9. The commission shall prepare and send to the house of representatives and senate judiciary committees annually a report containing the names, medical condition and current status of all persons granted parole pursuant to subsection (8) of this section.
  10. The department of correction shall promulgate rules in consultation with the commission to prepare prisoners for parole. The department of correction shall create sufficient programming opportunities, such that lack of access to programming is not the primary cause in delaying parole eligibility. The department shall promulgate rules to include case plan development upon entry into prison and a current risk assessment before all parole hearings.
  11. By February 1, 2015, and by February 1 of each year thereafter, the department of correction and the commission shall submit a report to the legislature and governor that describes the most common reasons for delay or denial of release, including statistical data supporting the conclusions of the report.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-223, as added by 1980, ch. 297, § 6, p. 768; am. 1985, ch. 122, § 6, p. 296; am. 1986, ch. 232, § 5, p. 638; am. 1989, ch. 369, § 1, p. 926; am. 1993, ch. 106, § 1, p. 271; am. 1998, ch. 327, § 1, p. 1055; am. 1999, ch. 326, § 1, p. 834; am. 2000, ch. 368, § 3, p. 1219; am. 2006, ch. 251, § 1, p. 760; am. 2013, ch. 241, § 1, p. 569; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 12, p. 414; am. 2017, ch. 182, § 4, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-223, which comprised S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 23, p. 59; am. 1950 (E. S.), ch. 75, § 1, p. 99; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 8, p. 425; am. 1971, ch. 93, § 1, p. 204, was repealed by S.L. 1980, ch. 297, § 5.

Amendments.

The 2006 amendment, by ch. 251, in subsection (b), inserted “or mental health professionals designated for this purpose by the department of correction” near the middle, and substituted “person” for “psychiatrist or psychologist” in the last sentence.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 241, substituted “may be returned” for “will be returned” in the fourth sentence in subsection (a) and inserted the next-to-last sentence in subsection (a).

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, deleted “policies or procedures” following “rules” throughout the section; inserted the present subsection (2) designation and redesignated former subsections (a) through (g) as present subsections (1) through (8); in subsection (4), inserted “ensure that a risk assessment has been conducted pursuant to section 20-224, Idaho Code, and shall” in the first sentence and “and risk assessment” and “the results of a risk assessment” in the second sentence; inserted “of representatives” in subsection (8); and added subsections (9) through (11).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 182, rewrote the section, inserting present subsection (1) and deleting former subsection (10), relating to legislative intent.

Compiler’s Notes.
Title of 1986 Act.
Effective Dates.

Section 9 of S.L. 1985, ch. 122 read: “This act shall be in full force and effect on October 1, 1985, and shall apply to persons against whom a criminal complaint or juvenile petition is filed on or after October 1, 1985.”

Section 6 of S.L. 1986, ch. 232 read: “This act shall be in full force and effect on and after February 1, 1987, and the amendments in this act shall apply only to those persons who shall commit an offense on or after February 1, 1987, and are not intended to repeal or amend those provisions of the Code which apply to persons committing an offense prior to February 1, 1987, which provisions shall continue to apply, and further that amendments in this act are not intended to repeal or amend sections 19-2520, 19-2520A, 19-2520B, 19-2520C or 19-2520D, Idaho Code.”

Section 2 of S.L. 1989, ch. 369 declared an emergency. Approved April 5, 1989.

Section 2 of S.L. 2006, ch. 251 declared an emergency. Approved March 30, 2006.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 12 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Bill of attainder. Discretion of commission.

Appellate Review.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, an inmate serving a single, indeterminate sentence for a crime not enumerated in this section, will be considered for parole at some time within the first one-third of the sentence. Accordingly, for the purpose of appellate review of an indeterminate sentence, the court of appeals will deem one-third of the sentence to be appropriate measure of the term of confinement, unless the record indicates the contrary. State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982).

In reviewing the length of confinement under indeterminate sentences, the court of appeals will take account of parole eligibility and presume that the defendant’s actual term of confinement will be at least one-third of his sentence. State v. Spurgeon, 107 Idaho 173, 687 P.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1984).

For the purpose of appellate review, one-third of 25-year indeterminate sentences is treated as the measure of confinement. State v. Glandon, 109 Idaho 755, 710 P.2d 665 (Ct. App. 1985).

Where, in denying parole, the pardons and parole commission orally stated reasons to the defendant at the hearing based on his drug-related crimes and the commission’s desire to have him serve more time, this satisfied the rational basis requirement of appellate review. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

Appellate review is limited to whether there is a rational basis in the record for the pardons and parole commission’s decision. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988). Given the close alignment of the commission of pardons and paroles with the board of corrections, the fact that the commission is exercising the parole power delegated to it by the board, and the fact that the legislature found it necessary to specifically give authority to the commission to promulgate regulations pursuant to the administrative procedures act in subsection (a) [now (2)] of this section, the commission’s parole and probation functions are, as were those of the board of corrections before it, exempt from the appeal provision of§ 67-5215(a) (now repealed). Carman v. State, Comm’n of Pardons & Parole, 119 Idaho 642, 809 P.2d 503 (1991).

Bill of Attainder.

As a matter of law, this section does not constitute a bill of attainder in respect to the legislature’s constitutional power to determine when, or under what circumstances, a prisoner may be eligible for parole consideration. Volker v. State, 107 Idaho 1059, 695 P.2d 809 (Ct. App. 1985).

Discretion of Commission.

This section does not place any substantive limitations upon the pardons and parole commission’s discretion in the consideration of its decision. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

Inmate’s due process rights were not violated because the commission on pardons and paroles rejected a hearing officer’s recommendation that the inmate be reinstated to parole; the commission had the sole authority to decide whether to revoke the inmate’s parole. Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Verska v. St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011).

Due Process.

Parole under this section is only a mere possibility, and the possibility of parole is not protected by due process; the constitutional protection afforded this limited expectation of parole is found in the procedures enacted to grant parole. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

Summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of the prison warden in the inmate’s habeas corpus petition where the inmate’s allegation that he was informed of the Idaho commission of pardons and paroles’ parole decision in a summary fashion while being ushered from the room after the conclusion of his Sentence 1 parole revocation hearing was sufficient to raise factual issues as to whether the commission deprived the inmate of the right to notice and an opportunity to participate in a parole hearing on Sentence 2; these factual issues precluded summary judgment on the inmate’s claim for relief with respect to his Sentence 2 parole proceeding. Acheson v. Klauser, 139 Idaho 156, 75 P.3d 210 (Ct. App. 2003).

Enhancement Sentence.

A defendant sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence plus an additional term for use of a firearm, said sentences to be served consecutively, must serve the indeterminate life sentence until paroled or pardoned, at which time he or she must immediately begin serving the firearm sentence until paroled, pardoned, or discharged. State v. Kaiser, 108 Idaho 17, 696 P.2d 868 (1985). The requirements of this section do not constitute an enhancement of sentence; moreover, this section applies to a defendant not because of his mental or physical status but because he committed one of the enumerated offenses. It, thus, does not inflict a cruel or unusual punishment. State v. Gee, 107 Idaho 991, 695 P.2d 376 (1985).

Under this section, as in effect at the time defendant committed his crimes, a ten-year indeterminate sentence for robbery would require defendant serve an additional forty months following the completion of two concurrent twenty-five year determinate sentences. State v. Amerson, 129 Idaho 395, 925 P.2d 399 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1123, 117 S. Ct. 2519, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (1997).

Guilty Pleas.

Informing a defendant of parole consequences may be desirable but is not a constitutional prerequisite to accepting a guilty plea. Brooks v. State, 108 Idaho 855, 702 P.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1985).

The counsel’s alleged error in stating the potential effect of a ten-year sentence, particularly the minimum time provisions for parole eligibility under this section, did not affect the voluntariness of the defendant’s guilty plea. Hays v. State, 113 Idaho 736, 747 P.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1987), aff’d, 115 Idaho 315, 766 P.2d 785 (1988), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660 (1992).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

The court of appeals correctly applied the precedent that the failure of counsel to inform an accused of the effect of this section on the minimum period of confinement before eligibility for parole did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel that would affect the voluntariness of the plea. Hays v. State, 113 Idaho 736, 747 P.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1987), aff’d, 115 Idaho 315, 766 P.2d 785 (1988), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660 (1992).

In General.

Time served on parole is not the same as time served in a correctional institution. Parole is a gratuity which shall be ordered only for the best interests of society, not as a reward of clemency. Flores v. State, 109 Idaho 182, 706 P.2d 71 (Ct. App. 1985).

Life Sentence.

As punishment for first degree murder, the accused may be sentenced to death or to a life term in the custody of the board of correction. Where capital punishment was not pursued by the state, the decision by the sentencing court as to whether the life sentence could be indeterminate with the possibility of parole after ten years, or would be served entirely in confinement as a fixed or determinate sentence without the possibility of parole, was a matter within the court’s discretion. State v. Tribe, 126 Idaho 610, 888 P.2d 389 (Ct. App. 1994).

Maximum Sentence.

Other than where legislative restrictions as to parole or other release of a committed offender have been placed on the board or commission involving certain specified crimes, the sentencing judge, using an indeterminate sentence with its maximum to be set by the judge, is basically viewing such maximum as being the longest period reasonably expected to be required to accomplish rehabilitation. State v. Kingsley, 99 Idaho 868, 590 P.2d 1014 (1979).

Measure of Confinement.

For the purpose of appellate review, the court will apply the one-third measure of confinement, rather than a lesser statutory minimum, to an indeterminate sentence in a case under this section. State v. Jenkins, 105 Idaho 166, 667 P.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1983).

Absent a contrary statute or other indication in the record, appellate court, in reviewing sentence, will treat one-third of an indeterminate sentence as the measure of confinement. State v. Adams, 106 Idaho 309, 678 P.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1984).

For the purpose of appellate review of the excessiveness of a sentence, but not as a prediction of parole, the appellate court presumes, absent a contrary statute or indication in the record, that the actual duration of confinement under an indeterminate sentence will be one-third of the sentence length. This section, which governs parole consideration in serious cases, including rape, is not deemed to be a “contrary” statute for this purpose; the one-third measure will be applied even if a prisoner might be eligible for parole consideration earlier under the statute. State v. Mahoney, 107 Idaho 190, 687 P.2d 580 (Ct. App. 1984).

Murder.

One convicted of first degree murder may be sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence and if the sentence is for indeterminate life, this section, setting forth powers of the state board of correction, prohibits release on parole until ten years have been served; nevertheless, a sentence for a fixed term of ten years is in no sense of the phrase a life sentence. State v. Wilson, 107 Idaho 506, 690 P.2d 1338 (1984).

Parole.
— Conditions.

Although only the commission for pardons and parole may impose substantive, rehabilitative conditions of parole, the board of correction may recommend substantive conditions, and the commission may delegate to its executive director the authority to act in its behalf in approving the board’s recommended parole conditions. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Parole conditions are not additional punishments or penalties to the crime for which a person was sentenced and incarcerated; their violation may simply result in the loss of parole, consequently, implementation of the Intensive Supervision Program did not violate the ex post facto prohibition. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988). The intensive supervision program conditions of parole authorizing warrantless searches, requiring the payment of fees to defray costs of supervision, restricting the use of alcohol, and establishing a curfew and geographic restrictions were reasonable, were possible to perform, and had an acceptable aim toward rehabilitation. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

No constitutional violation occurred when an inmate was denied parole on the basis of his refusal to participate in a therapeutic community program. A rational basis existed for imposing that condition because his lack of willingness to participate in rehabilitative programming was relevant to the inquiry into parole suitability, required by subsection (c) [now (4)]. Warren v. Craven, 152 Idaho 327, 271 P.3d 725 (Ct. App. 2012).

— Eligibility.

When the minimum period specified by the judge has been served, the individual becomes parole-eligible; he may be released on parole at any time thereafter during the indeterminate portion of the sentence. State v. Knight, 114 Idaho 923, 762 P.2d 836 (Ct. App. 1988).

The determination of whether an inmate has served a commensurate amount of his sentence such that he is eligible for parole rests with the department of correction, not the sentencing judge. State v. Sherman, 120 Idaho 464, 816 P.2d 1021 (Ct. App. 1991).

Determination of whether or not an inmate has served a commensurate amount of his sentence such that he is eligible for parole rests with the department of correction pursuant to this section, and not with the sentencing judge; district court below correctly decided that defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief in an effort to challenge the authority of the parole commission to decide that a prisoner should not be released on parole until a point in time after the expiration of the minimum period of confinement ordered by the sentencing judge and specified under§ 19-2513. State v. Nickerson, 126 Idaho 818, 892 P.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1995).

Change in parole reconsideration rules did not constitute an ex post facto violation because the eligibility standards for parole were the same for a prisoner as they were when he was originally incarcerated; all that had changed was the procedure by which the prisoner was reviewed for parole eligibility. Quinlan v. Idaho Comm’n for Pardons & Parole, 138 Idaho 726, 69 P.3d 146 (2003).

— Protected Interest.

A protected interest in parole does not come into existence after successful completion of one-third of the defendant’s indeterminate sentence. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Revocation.

The commission for pardons and parole’s act of revoking the defendant’s parole for violating conditions recommended by the board of correction and approved by the commission’s executive director could be inferred as a ratification of the director’s approval. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Right to.

This state’s parole scheme does not establish a protected interest or right to be released; the “shall” language used in this section does not set forth detailed conditions and qualifications which, once being met, entitle a prisoner to expect parole, but rather merely sets forth conditions which must be satisfied before an applicant becomes eligible for parole. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

There is no constitutionally protected interest in parole. Hays v. State, 132 Idaho 516, 975 P.2d 1181 (Ct. App. 1999).

Although subsection (c) [now (5)] directs that parole be granted when it was in the best interests of society and the prisoner is willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen, that determination is a discretionary decision of the commission of pardons and parole that does not vest in the prisoner a legitimate expectation of parole, but rather a mere possibility of parole. Burghart v. Carlin, 151 Idaho 730, 264 P.3d 71 (Ct. App. 2011).

— Statement of Reasons for Denial.

A defendant is not entitled to a written statement of reasons for denial of his parole. Vittone v. State, 114 Idaho 618, 759 P.2d 909 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Timing for Review.

A regulatory change by the parole commission in the timing for review of an inmate’s eligibility for parole does not give rise to a claim that the alteration violates the constitutional restriction against ex post facto laws. Freeman v. State, Comm’n of Pardons & Paroles, 119 Idaho 692, 809 P.2d 1171 (Ct. App. 1991).

Magistrate erred in finding moot, a habeas petitioner’s claim that the commission of pardons and parole violated the law by failing to grant him a parole hearing to consider his eligibility for institutional parole at any time during the service of his first two sentences, and the denial of an opportunity for institutional parole on his first two sentences carried potential collateral consequences of substantial magnitude because the denial of the opportunity for institutional parole potentially added nearly seven years to petitioner’s overall period of incarceration. Lake v. Newcomb, 140 Idaho 190, 90 P.3d 1272 (Ct. App. 2004).

Psychiatric Evaluation.

As a matter of law, this section does not constitute a bill of attainder; since the “type and severity” of the burden of undergoing a psychiatric evaluation is nonpunitive and slight, it bears a reasonable relationship to the proper state purpose of ensuring that prisoners released on parole will be likely to successfully serve the remainder of their sentences out of the physical custody of the board of corrections. State v. Gee, 107 Idaho 991, 695 P.2d 376 (1985).

Where in amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner questioned the sufficiency of the amount of time—90 minutes—for his answers to written questions and responses during an interview by a psychological evaluator prepared pursuant to this section, but where on appeal he presented no cogent argument or citation to any authority demonstrating that any error occurred with regard to the preparation or consideration of the report which would entitle him to habeas corpus relief such issue was unreviewable. Freeman v. State, Comm’n of Pardons & Paroles, 119 Idaho 692, 809 P.2d 1171 (Ct. App. 1991). Magistrate and district court erred in dismissing the inmate’s petition as it was unclear from the record as to whether the individual who performed the inmate’s psychological evaluation was a licensed professional. Dopp v. Idaho Comm’n of Pardons & Parole, 139 Idaho 657, 84 P.3d 593 (Ct. App. 2004).

This section is designed to protect the public from sex offenders whose character or high likelihood of reoffense, as revealed by a psychological evaluation, suggests that they are not appropriate candidates for parole. Therefore, a potential parolee is not a member of the class of persons that this section is designed to protect. Dopp v. Idaho Comm’n of Pardons & Parole, 144 Idaho 402, 162 P.3d 781 (Ct. App. 2007).

Psychiatric Treatment.

A failure by the board of correction to provide psychological treatment for convicted pedophiles or other sexual offenders would not render either the conviction or the sentence, as pronounced, unlawful. If treatment is legally required, as the United States district court for this state has held, and if the treatment is nonexistent or is inadequate, then the proper remedy is to mandate reasonably adequate treatment. Hays v. State, 113 Idaho 736, 747 P.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1987), aff’d, 115 Idaho 315, 766 P.2d 785 (1988), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660 (1992).

Lack of psychological treatment available to the individual convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct created an issue cognizable in post-conviction relief proceedings. Hays v. State, 113 Idaho 736, 747 P.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1987), aff’d, 115 Idaho 315, 766 P.2d 785 (1988), overruled on other grounds, State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981, 842 P.2d 660 (1992).

Since the purpose in sentencing is punitive and not rehabilitative, this section does not require the establishment of a special psychological treatment program for sex offenders. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Cors., 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1988).

Rules and Regulations.

This section in giving the commission of pardons and parole the power to promulgate rules and regulations in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (§ 67-5201 et seq.) did not mandate that the procedural rights established in that act be utilized in parole hearings; moreover, the definitional statement of the act in§ 67-5201(1) [now (2)] specifically excludes the board of corrections from the requirements of the act. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Cors., 595 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984), rev’d on other grounds, 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1988).

Sentence Reduced.

Indeterminate sentence of 30 years for rape would be reduced to 25 years where crime was defendant’s first felony and the lesser sentence would serve the court’s stated objectives of protection of society and punishment of defendant. State v. Martines, 105 Idaho 841, 673 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1983).

Sentence Valid.

Indeterminate sentence of 20 years upon conviction of second-degree murder, based on defendant’s shooting of wife, was within statutory maximum and was not excessive where defendant would be eligible for parole within five years, where sentence indicated that trial judge took account of mitigating factors, where society had an interest in retribution for and deterrence of similar crimes, and where rehabilitative programs would be available to aid defendant with regard to alcohol abuse and alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. State v. Pettit, 104 Idaho 601, 661 P.2d 767 (Ct. App. 1983).

In prosecution for attempted rape of a child, where the investigation disclosed that defendant, who was 22 years old when sentenced, had prior convictions for a burglary and two petit larcenies and also had a history of unlawful use and distribution of drugs and alcohol, the imposition of a ten-year indeterminate sentence did not represent an abuse of discretion and the district judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to retain jurisdiction under§ 19-2601 4. State v. Nield, 105 Idaho 153, 666 P.2d 1164 (Ct. App. 1983), aff’d, 106 Idaho 665, 682 P.2d 618 (1984).

Sentence of indeterminate period not exceeding 25 years, imposed after conviction of second-degree murder, was not excessive where the record disclosed a senseless killing by a defendant with a long history of alcohol and firearm-related offenses; defendant would face confinement for a period of at least eight years and four months, under this section, which was warranted in order to protect society from defendant and as retribution for the senseless taking of human life. State v. Jenkins, 105 Idaho 166, 667 P.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1983).

Sex Offenders.

Through this section, having chosen to incarcerate a class of inmates on the basis of being sex offenders, and other categories of mental illness, the state has thus determined that it no longer has an interest in punishing the inmate, but rather in attempting to rehabilitate him; this rehabilitative rationale is not only desirable, but it is constitutionally required. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Cors., 595 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984), rev’d on other grounds, 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1988).

Notwithstanding the dilemma posed where little rehabilitation allegedly is available in the penitentiary in which defendant is confined, and where this section places stringent requirements for defendant’s possible release on parole, two-year minimum periods of confinement with regard to convictions on two counts of lewd conduct with a minor were reasonable sanctions for the crimes committed, and the aggregate 15-year maximum terms were reasonable outside limits of custody where defendant fails to demonstrate that he can be returned safely to the community at an earlier time. State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 657, 791 P.2d 38 (Ct. App. 1990).

Cited

This section does not require that the board of corrections provide specialized treatment for sex offenders, and with regard to cruel and unusual punishment,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 6, is not violated by the psychological evaluation required by this section before sex offenders can be paroled. Stillwell v. State, 124 Idaho 366, 859 P.2d 964 (Ct. App. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1056, 114 S. Ct. 1619, 128 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1994). Cited State v. Rawson, 100 Idaho 308, 597 P.2d 31 (1979); State v. Fuchs, 100 Idaho 341, 597 P.2d 227 (1979); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); State v. Moore, 104 Idaho 226, 657 P.2d 1094 (Ct. App. 1983); Holmes v. State, 104 Idaho 312, 658 P.2d 983 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Lloyd, 104 Idaho 397, 659 P.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Wilde, 104 Idaho 461, 660 P.2d 73 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Rossi, 105 Idaho 681, 672 P.2d 249 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Gilman, 105 Idaho 898, 673 P.2d 1085 (Ct. App. 1983); State v. Camarillo, 106 Idaho 310, 678 P.2d 102 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Tisdale, 107 Idaho 481, 690 P.2d 936 (Ct. App. 1984); Roberts v. State, 108 Idaho 183, 697 P.2d 1197 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Harrison, 108 Idaho 324, 699 P.2d 30 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Martinez, 109 Idaho 61, 704 P.2d 965 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Plumley, 109 Idaho 369, 707 P.2d 480 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Desjarlais, 110 Idaho 100, 714 P.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Lee, 111 Idaho 489, 725 P.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Hemenway, 111 Idaho 839, 727 P.2d 1267 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Reinke, 111 Idaho 968, 729 P.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Roach, 112 Idaho 173, 730 P.2d 1093 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Simons, 112 Idaho 254, 731 P.2d 797 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Banks, 113 Idaho 54, 740 P.2d 1039 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Carrasco, 114 Idaho 348, 757 P.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1988); State v. Talley, 114 Idaho 898, 761 P.2d 1250 (Ct. App. 1988); State v. Bartlett, 118 Idaho 722, 800 P.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1990); Whitehawk v. State, 119 Idaho 168, 804 P.2d 341 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Aubert, 119 Idaho 868, 811 P.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Snow, 120 Idaho 277, 815 P.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Alberts, 124 Idaho 489, 861 P.2d 59 (1993); Moon v. N. Idaho Farmers Ass’n, 140 Idaho 536, 96 P.3d 637 (2004); Storm v. Spaulding, 137 Idaho 145, 44 P.3d 1200 (Ct. App. 2002); Brandt v. State, 126 Idaho 101, 878 P.2d 800 (Ct. App. 1994); Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d 417 (Ct. App. 2005).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Constitutionality.

Since parole, unlike the executive powers of commutation and pardon, is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for various crimes, former law regarding parole rules and regulations did not violate the constitutional provision (Idaho Const., Art. II, § 1) that no branch of government may exercise the power properly charged to another branch. Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

The provision of former law that a prisoner serve one-third of his sentence, if convicted of certain named crimes, before he is eligible for parole did not violate the constitutional requirement (Idaho Const., Art. III, § 16) that each statute be concerned with but one topic, since the legislature possesses wide discretion in the classification of crimes. Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Equal Protection.

Where a convicted person was sentenced to concurrent terms for a period not to exceed ten years on a manslaughter charge and for a period not to exceed ten years on an assault charge, the prisoner was not denied equal protection of the law by the classification of crimes established in former law regarding rules and regulations regarding parole, in view of the legislative authority to classify crimes as to the gravity of the acts and to provide longer terms of imprisonment for the more serious crimes. Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Hearing.

Commission rule requiring that inmate falling within restrictions of former similar section should receive primary interview within two months of eligibility for parole only established the time at which a primary hearing was to be held, and did not pertain to the time at which a parole hearing was to be held. Izatt v. State, 104 Idaho 597, 661 P.2d 763 (1983).

In General.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought on the theory that a sentence for not to exceed sixty years was invalid as, under such a sentence, the prisoner would not be eligible for parole until he had served twenty years while, under a sentence for life, he would be eligible in ten years was prematurely brought when filed before the prisoner had served ten years. King v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966).

Parole is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for crimes inasmuch as parole differs from pardon and commutation in that the parole merely allows the convicted party to serve part of his sentence outside the penitentiary but does not pardon him of his guilt or commute any portion of his sentence. Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Judicial Review.

The parole board has broad discretion and in reviewing a parole board’s decision a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Therefore, the scope of judicial review is limited to determining whether the information relied on by the parole board was sufficient to provide a factual basis for the reasons given. Ybarra v. Dermitt, 104 Idaho 150, 657 P.2d 14 (1983).

Presentence Report.

The parole board’s reliance on a presentence report, which included two letters received from police officers recommending against parole, was sufficient to establish a rational basis for the board’s decision denying parole; even though the letters contained hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations, they could be taken into account by the parole board since the letters were available and were considered by the sentencing judge. Ybarra v. Dermitt, 104 Idaho 150, 657 P.2d 14 (1983).

Sentence for More Than 30 Years.

Where defendant sentenced for 60 years for second degree murder would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence, while those sentenced for life become eligible after 10 years, any sentence of 30 years or more for purposes of parole eligibility must be treated as effective life sentence. King v. State, 93 Idaho 87, 456 P.2d 254 (1969); State v. Butler, 93 Idaho 492, 464 P.2d 931 (1970); Pulver v. State, 93 Idaho 687, 471 P.2d 74 (1970), overruled on other grounds, State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4, 539 P.2d 556 (1975).

Statement of Reasons.

Former similar section did not set forth detailed conditions and qualifications which once met, entitled an inmate to an expectation of parole but merely set forth necessary conditions which must be established before parole could be granted, thereby creating only a possibility of parole; consequently, the commission was not obligated as a matter of due process to give written reasons for a denial of parole. Izatt v. State, 104 Idaho 597, 661 P.2d 763 (1983).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Commutation Power.

The commission of pardons and parole has the authority to commute a death penalty, to commute a death sentence to a fixed life term, to commute an indeterminate sentence to a lesser fixed sentence, and to commute a fixed sentence to a lesser fixed sentence.OAG 84-8.

The board of correction has no authority to do an outright early discharge of prisoners; the power to release prisoners is vested in the commission of pardons and parole, which may release prisoners on parole, or pardon or commute their sentences.OAG 87-5.

As to sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, February 1, 1987, the commission of pardons and parole may, pursuant to properly enacted rules and regulations, parole an inmate who is serving an indeterminate sentence and who has one or more consecutive sentences remaining to be served; when paroled, such an inmate would have a dual status as a parolee on the first sentence and as an inmate on the consecutive sentence or sentences.OAG 87-9.

The commission of pardons and parole may commute an indeterminate sentence to a lesser fixed term for the purpose of complying with the Prisoner Transfer Treaty between the United States and Mexico.OAG 93-3.

The Idaho commission for pardons and parole does have the power to commute a sentence during a fixed term under the Unified Sentencing Act.OAG 94-3.

Multiple Sentences.

When two sentences are ordered to be served consecutively, and when they both contain fixed and indeterminate terms, the fixed sentences must be served first, one after the other. Then, the parole commission shall determine when and if parole will be granted at any time during the pendency of the consecutive indeterminate terms in a single proceeding.OAG 92-1.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 20-224. Information regarding prisoners to be secured.

  1. Within six (6) months after his admission and at such intervals thereafter as it may determine, the board shall secure all pertinent available information regarding each prisoner, including the circumstances of his offense, his previous social history and criminal record, his conduct, employment and attitude in prison, and reports of such physical and mental examinations as have been made to assist the board in prescribing treatment for such person while in confinement and to assist the commission in its deliberations. The board and the commission shall attempt to inform themselves as to such inmate as a personality and may seek from the sentencing judge, prosecuting attorney, defense counsel and law enforcement authorities such information of which they may be possessed relative to the convicted person and the crime for which he was committed. An electronic recording or transcript of the comments and arguments required to be recorded by section 19-2515, Idaho Code, shall be submitted to the board, made available to the commission, and shall be considered by the commission in making a parole or commutation decision with respect to the prisoner.
  2. The board of correction shall use a validated risk assessment to determine, for each prisoner, the risk of reoffense and suitability for release. For purposes of this subsection, “validated risk assessment” means an actuarial tool that has been validated in Idaho to determine the likelihood of the prisoner engaging in future criminal behavior. The board shall select a research-based risk assessment and shall validate the accuracy of the risk assessment at least every five (5) years in consultation with the commission. Assessments shall be performed by department staff who are trained and certified in the use of the risk assessment. The commission shall promulgate rules in compliance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, to ensure that risk assessment is used in determining parole, the benefit of holding a prisoner in prison to complete programming versus releasing the prisoner on parole to complete programming in the community and in setting conditions for parole supervision.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 24, p. 59; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 7, p. 768; am. 1984, ch. 230, § 2, p. 549; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 13, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, designated the extant provisions of the section as subsection (1) and added subsection (2).

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 13 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Denial of Parole.

Information that an inmate is a suspect in another, as yet uncharged, crime is relevant to parole decision and a rule that a denial of parole following the commission’s receipt of such information will constitute an “arrest” for the uncharged offense would hamper the functions of both the probation and parole commission and law enforcement authorities and the denial of parole to defendant was not the equivalent of an arrest for the sexual offense that remained under investigation, his continued incarceration was for the burglary conviction and was not pretrial detention for the uncharged sex offense, and defendant’s sixth amendment rights were not implicated until formal charges were filed. State v. Brashier, 127 Idaho 730, 905 P.2d 1039 (Ct. App. 1995).

Due Process.

Because the inmate failed to establish that the inmate had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in receiving a parole hearing as soon as the inmate became parole-eligible and because the Idaho parole commission was statutorily allotted six months in which to gather information relevant to its decision on whether to grant or deny parole to an inmate, the inmate’s right to due process was not violated by the commission’s refusal to consider him for parole until he had served six months in prison. Duvalt v. Sonnen, 137 Idaho 548, 50 P.3d 1043 (Ct. App. 2002).

Presentence Report.

The parole board’s reliance on a presentence report, which included two letters received from police officers recommending against parole, was sufficient to establish a rational basis for the board’s decision denying parole; even though the letters contained hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations, they could be taken into account by the parole board since the letters were available and were considered by the sentencing judge. Ybarra v. Dermitt, 104 Idaho 150, 657 P.2d 14 (1983).

Cited

Whitehawk v. State, 119 Idaho 168, 804 P.2d 341 (Ct. App. 1991).

§ 20-225. Payment for cost of supervision.

Any person under state probation or parole supervision shall be required to contribute not more than seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per month as determined by the board of correction. Costs of supervision are the direct and indirect costs incurred by the department of correction to supervise probationers and parolees, including tests to determine drug and alcohol use, books and written materials to support rehabilitation efforts, and monitoring of physical location through the use of technology. Any failure to pay such contribution shall constitute grounds for the revocation of probation by the court or the revocation of parole by the commission for pardons and parole. The division of probation and parole in the department of correction may exempt a person from the payment of all or any part of the foregoing contribution if it finds any of the following factors to exist:

  1. The offender has diligently attempted but been unable to obtain employment.
  2. The offender has a disability affecting employment, as determined by a physical, psychological or psychiatric examination acceptable to the division of probation and parole.

Money collected as a fee for services will be placed in the probation and parole receipts revenue fund, which is hereby created in the dedicated fund in the state treasury, and utilized to provide supervision for clients. Moneys in the probation and parole receipts revenue fund may be expended only after appropriation by the legislature. This section shall not restrict the court from ordering the payment of other costs and fees that, by law, may be imposed on persons who have been found guilty of or have pled guilty to a criminal offense, including those who have been placed on probation or parole.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-225, as added by 1984, ch. 187, § 1, p. 436; am. 2003, ch. 130, § 1, p. 383; am. 2005, ch. 68, § 1, p. 233; am. 2010, ch. 235, § 8, p. 542; am. 2011, ch. 73, § 1, p. 155; am. 2012, ch. 109, § 3, p. 299.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-225, which comprised S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 25, p. 59, was repealed by S.L. 1980, ch. 297, § 8.

Amendments.

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 235, substituted “a disability affecting employment” for “an employment handicap” in subsection (2).

The 2011 amendment, by ch. 73, substituted “seventy-five dollars ($75.00)” for “fifty dollars ($50.00)” in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph.

Compiler’s Notes.

Section 2 of S.L. 1984, ch. 187 which provided that this section was repealed on June 30, 1988 was repealed by § 4 of S.L. 1987, ch. 266.

For further information on the division of probation and parole in the department of correction, see https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/probation and parole .

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2003, ch. 130 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 2003.

CASE NOTES

Reversal of conviction.

The state did not need to refund to defendant the amount defendant paid for supervised probation when the conviction and sentence under which the defendant was placed on probation was subsequently reversed on appeal and the underlying criminal charge dismissed, for even though his conviction was set aside and the criminal charge was dismissed, the state in fact provided the supervision service. State v. Walker, 126 Idaho 508, 887 P.2d 53 (Ct. App. 1994).

Cited

State v. Korsen, 141 Idaho 445, 111 P.3d 130 (2005).

§ 20-225A. Payment for interstate compact application.

  1. Any person under state probation or parole supervision who applies for a transfer of supervision to another state shall be required to post an application fee not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
  2. Money collected as a fee for services and compact administration shall be placed in the probation and parole receipts account, which is hereby created in the dedicated fund in the state treasury, and shall be utilized to provide supervision for offenders. Moneys in the probation and parole receipts account may be expended only after appropriation by the legislature.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-225A, as added by 2003, ch. 25, § 1, p. 94.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2003, ch. 25 declared an emergency. Approved February 20, 2003.

§ 20-226. Records of prisoners.

The state board of correction shall cause a complete record to be kept of every prisoner committed to its custody. Such record shall be organized in accordance with the most modern method of filing and indexing so that there will always be immediately available a complete history on each prisoner. Such records shall be subject to disclosure according to chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 26, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 9, p. 425; am. 1990, ch. 213, § 15, p. 480; am. 2015, ch. 141, § 23, p. 379.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 141, substituted “chapter 1, title 74” for “chapter 3, title 9” in the last sentence.

Effective Dates.

Section 111 of S.L. 1990, ch. 213 as amended by § 16 of S.L. 1991, ch. 329 provided that §§ 3 through 45 and 48 through 110 of the act should take effect July 1, 1993 and that §§ 1, 2, 46 and 47 should take effect July 1, 1990.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Marsh, 153 Idaho 360, 283 P.3d 107 (Ct. App. 2011).

§ 20-227. Arrest of parolee, probationer or person under drug court or mental health court supervision without warrant — Agent’s warrant — Detention — Report to commission or court.

  1. Any parole or probation officer may arrest a parolee, probationer, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision without a warrant, or may deputize any other officer with power of arrest to do so, by giving such officer a written statement hereafter referred to as an agent’s warrant, setting forth that the parolee, probationer, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision has, in the judgment of said parole or probation officer, violated the conditions of drug court or mental health court or conditions of his parole or probation. The provisions of this section shall apply where the court has provided for the service of discretionary jail time.
  2. Such written statement or agent’s warrant, delivered with the parolee, probationer, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision by the arresting officer to the official in charge of the institution from which the parolee was released, the county jail or other place of detention, shall be sufficient warrant for the detention of the probationer, parolee, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision.
  3. The agent’s warrant issued by the parole or probation officer shall be sufficient authorization for a local law enforcement officer to transport the probationer, parolee, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision to the appropriate jurisdiction to be housed pending appearance before the sentencing court or the commission.
  4. The parole and probation officer shall at once notify the commission, or the court, of the arrest and detention of the parolee, probationer, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision, and shall submit in writing a report showing in what manner the parolee, probationer, or person under drug court or mental health court supervision is alleged to have violated the condition of his or her parole, probation, or drug court or mental health court program. When a probationer is arrested pursuant to an agent’s warrant, the supervising officer shall provide the prosecuting attorney with a copy of the notice of arrest and the report.
  5. In counties where there are misdemeanor probation officers in addition to department of correction parole or probation officers, those officers shall have the same authority conferred upon department of correction parole or probation officers in this section to arrest a misdemeanor probationer without a warrant for misdemeanor probation violations occurring in the officer’s presence as otherwise provided in this section.
  6. When a probationer has been arrested by the supervising officer without a warrant or pursuant to an agent’s warrant, the supervising officer shall submit to the court, to the prosecuting attorney and to the facility where the probationer is detained, a statement of probable cause for the violation. The statement shall be attested to under oath or under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, and shall be submitted within twenty-four (24) hours of the arrest. If a judicial determination of probable cause is not made within forty-eight (48) hours of arrest, then the probationer shall be released.

History. 1947, ch. 23, § 27, p. 59; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 9, p. 768; am. 1994, ch. 424, § 1, p. 1332; am. 1999, ch. 300, § 1, p. 752; am. 2004, ch. 227, § 2, p. 669; am. 2006, ch. 143, § 1, p. 404; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 14, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Drug and mental health courts,§ 19-5601 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2006 amendment, by ch. 143, inserted “or mental health court” in the section heading and throughout the section.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, added the last sentence in subsection (1); added the last sentence in subsection (4); and added subsection (6).

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 1994, ch. 424 declared an emergency. Approved April 7, 1994.

Section 3 of S.L. 2004, ch. 227 declared an emergency. Approved March 23, 2004.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 14 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 should take effect on and after March 1, 2015.

CASE NOTES

Agent’s Warrant.

This section authorizes a parole or probation officer to arrest a parolee or probationer without a warrant and provides that a parole or probation officer may deputize any other officer with the power of arrest to do so, by giving such officer a written statement known as an “agent’s warrant.” However, the failure to comply with the statute’s warrant requirement does not amount to a constitutional violation. State v. Ayala, 164 Idaho 550, 432 P.3d 996 (Ct. App. 2018).

Cited

Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986); Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho 330, 743 P.2d 983 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Covert, 143 Idaho 169, 139 P.3d 771 (Ct. App. 2006); State v. Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho 274, 270 P.3d 1059 (Ct. App. 2011).

§ 20-228. Conditions of parole to be specified in writing — Warrant for arrest of suspected violators — Effect of suspension and arrest.

The commission for pardons and parole, in releasing a person on parole, shall specify in writing the conditions of parole, and a copy of such conditions shall be given to the person paroled. The commission shall include in the conditions of parole a requirement that the defendant enter into and comply with an agreement of supervision with the board of correction. The agreement of supervision shall include provisions setting forth the potential sanctions for a violation of the conditions imposed and potential rewards for compliance with the conditions imposed, as such sanctions and rewards are set forth in rules of the board. Whenever the commission finds that a parolee may have violated the conditions of parole, the written order of the commission, signed by a member or members of the commission or the executive director, shall be sufficient warrant for any law enforcement officer to take into custody such person, and it is hereby made the duty of all sheriffs, police, constables, parole and probation officers, prison officials and other peace officers, to execute such order. Such warrant shall serve to suspend the person’s parole until a determination on the merits of the allegations of the violation has been made pursuant to a revocation hearing. From and after the issuance of the warrant and suspension of the parole of any convicted person and until arrest, the parolee shall be considered a fugitive from justice. Such person so recommitted, except as provided in section 20-229B, Idaho Code, must serve out the sentence, and the time during which such prisoner was out on parole shall not be deemed a part thereof, unless the commission, in its discretion, shall determine otherwise, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the commission from again paroling such prisoners at its discretion.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 28, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 105, § 1, p. 263; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 10, p. 768; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 3, p. 382; am. 1998, ch. 327, § 2, p. 1055; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 15, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, inserted the present second and third sentences and inserted “except as provided in section 20-229B, Idaho Code” in the last sentence.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150, as amended by S.L. 2015, ch. 184, § 1 provided that the amendment of this section by S.L. 2014, ch. 150, § 15 should take effect on and after October 1, 2015.

CASE NOTES

Computing Maximum Sentence.

Neither§ 20-233 nor§ 20-239 speaks to how one’s maximum sentence shall be computed, and when it will expire if parole has been granted but subsequently revoked. This section is the only section which speaks to this question, and its plain language need not be modified by judicial construction to accommodate the other statutes; accordingly a judicially created exception to the express language of this section was not proper where it permitted a defendant’s parole time to count together with his prison time in calculating the duration of his sentence. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Conditions of Parole.

Although only the commission for pardons and parole may impose substantive, rehabilitative conditions of parole, the board of correction may recommend substantive conditions, and the commission may delegate to its executive director the authority to act in its behalf in approving the board’s recommended parole conditions. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

This section does not expressly provide for the parole agreement to be of no effect upon the issuance of a warrant or upon incarceration. The issuance of an arrest warrant suspends a parolee’s liberty and his physical freedom from incarceration; however, the applicable terms and conditions of his parole, such as a Fourth Amendment waiver, remain operative until revoked through a due process hearing. State v. Ellis, 155 Idaho 584, 314 P.3d 639 (Ct. App. 2013).

— Reasonable.

The intensive supervision program conditions of parole authorizing warrantless searches, requiring the payment of fees to defray costs of supervision, restricting the use of alcohol, and establishing a curfew and geographic restrictions, were reasonable, were possible to perform, and had an acceptable aim toward rehabilitation. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988). Defendant’s sentence, which included a four-year period of parole supervision after his release from one year incarceration, was reasonable because defendant was an alcoholic, this was his third conviction for driving while under the influence, and four months after he was arrested and charged in the instant case, he “went on a bender” and was hospitalized for alcohol detoxification. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (2007).

— Revocation.

The commission for pardons and parole’s act of revoking the defendant’s parole for violating conditions recommended by the board of correction and approved by the commission’s executive director could be inferred as a ratification of the director’s approval. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

— Summary Approval.

The commission for pardons and parole is not prohibited from summarily approving recommended parole conditions. All that is statutorily required of the commission is to specify in writing the parole conditions; consequently, written parole conditions may be administratively accepted and approved. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Constitutionality.

This section, which provides that the time spent on parole shall not be considered to have been served as a part of a prisoner’s sentence when that prisoner is recommitted following a parole violation, is constitutional and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine of Idaho Const., Art. II, § 1. Flores v. State, 109 Idaho 182, 706 P.2d 71 (Ct. App. 1985).

This section did not violate the separation of powers where the legislature had the authority of establishing suitable punishment for various crimes; the legislative pronouncement that an inmate had to be subject to forfeiture of time spent on parole was an exercise of the legislative power to define crimes and their penalties and did not involve resentencing inmates; therefore, the statute did not violate the separation of powers. Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d 417 (Ct. App. 2005).

Constitutional Limitation.

Because it is apparent that time on parole is a form of punishment, the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution potentially limits the impact of this section. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Credit.

Inmate’s claim pertaining to Sentence 1 was properly dismissed where the Idaho commission of pardons and paroles had no authority in 1997 to permit credit against a sentence in the commission’s discretion. Acheson v. Klauser, 139 Idaho 156, 75 P.3d 210 (Ct. App. 2003). Inmate’s due process rights were not violated when, upon revoking his parole, the commission of pardons and parole forfeited 2,021 days the inmate had previously spent on parole after a prior parole violation, because the inmate was required to serve out the sentence. Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Verska v. St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011).

Cruel And Unusual Punishment.

Appellate court conducted a proportionality analysis comparing the sentence to those imposed on other defendants for similar offenses, and the burden of demonstrating that a sentence was cruel and unusual was on the person asserting the constitutional violation; therefore, defendant had not shown an inference of gross disproportionality, including the additional time he spent in custody due to the forfeiture of the 314 days, such that defendant failed to demonstrate that his sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d 417 (Ct. App. 2005).

Double Jeopardy.

Revocation of defendant’s parole constituted enforcement of a statutorily authorized condition of parole, that the time spent on parole would not count towards the completion of the judicially imposed sentences; similar to probation revocation, the re-incarceration resulting from the violation of the terms of parole was not a separate punishment for defendant’s underlying criminal offenses, such that defendant’s double jeopardy claim failed. Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d 417 (Ct. App. 2005).

Effect of Revocation.

Where one’s parole has been revoked, a credit against one’s sentence for time spent on parole is statutorily precluded. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Interpretation.

The fact that, when an inmate’s parole is revoked, the time that he spent on parole does not count towards the completion of the inmate’s sentence, unless the commission for pardons and parole decides in its discretion that the time should be so counted, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and does not place him in double jeopardy. Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d 417 (Ct. App. 2005).

Cited

Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986).

§ 20-228A. Parole subpoena to assist in apprehending parole absconders.

For the purpose of assisting with apprehending individuals on parole who have absconded and for whom the parole commission has issued a warrant of arrest, the director of the department of correction shall have power to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of writings, documents or records of any type or form, specifically including those stored or transmitted by any electronic or wireless means. If any person or entity to whom such subpoena is directed refuses to produce the documents, writings or records sought, as directed, within seven (7) days of receipt of the subpoena, the director may apply to the district court of the county where the records are located for an order compelling such person or entity to comply with the subpoena. Failure to obey such order may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-228A, as added by 2004, ch. 296, § 1, p. 826.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Contempt,§ 7-601 et seq.

Director of department of correction,§ 20-217A.

§ 20-229. Parole revocation hearing.

Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of parole, other than by absconding supervision or the commission of, and conviction for, a felony or misdemeanor offense under the laws of this state, or any other state, or any federal laws, the parolee shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges within thirty (30) days from the date the accused is served with the charges of the violation of conditions of parole subsequent to arrest and detention. The hearing shall be held before one (1) or more members of the commission for pardons and parole, or before an impartial hearings officer selected by the executive director. Such hearing shall be held at a place or places, within this state, reasonably near the site of the alleged violation or violations of parole. If the parolee has been supervised outside of the state of Idaho and such violations occurred outside of Idaho, the executive director or hearing officer shall determine the location of the hearing.

Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of parole by absconding supervision or the commission of, and conviction for, a felony or misdemeanor offense under the laws of this state, or any other state, or any federal laws, the parolee shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing within a reasonable time from the date the accused is served with such charges. The location of such hearing shall be determined by the executive director or hearing officer.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-229, as added by 1970, ch. 105, § 3, p. 263; am. 1975, ch. 247, § 1, p. 661; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 11, p. 768; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 4, p. 382.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Executive director of commission of pardon and parole,§ 20-210.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-229, which comprised, S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 29, p. 59, was repealed by S.L. 1970, ch. 105, § 2.

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 1975, ch. 247 provided that the act should take effect on and after July 1, 1975.

CASE NOTES

Saving Construction.

Although a judge may apply a saving construction to a statute if its language, although clear, would lead to absurd results which the legislature obviously could not have intended, this section does not so invite a saving construction. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Cited

Schwartzmiller v. Winters, 99 Idaho 18, 576 P.2d 1052 (1978); Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Analysis
Notice of Hearing.

Prisoner is entitled to have notice of hearing by board for revocation of good time and is entitled to be present at the hearing before any good time of prisoner can be revoked. Ex parte Dalton, 72 Idaho 451, 243 P.2d 594 (1952).

Retroactive Provision.

Provision in this section requiring a hearing before the board of correction before revocation of any good time was retroactive, even though Good Time Statute was repealed by Acts 1947, ch. 53, § 46. Ex parte Dalton, 72 Idaho 451, 243 P.2d 594 (1952).

Revocation of Good Time.

Where board revoked good time earned by appellant from May 6, 1942 until August 3, 1949 for misconduct, and there was no revocation of good time earned since August 3, 1949 the appellant was entitled to release where good time earned since August 3, 1949 was sufficient to complete service of sentence at time of application and hearing for release. Ex parte Dalton, 73 Idaho 542, 255 P.2d 333 (1953).

Witnesses.

There is no constitutional right to compel witness attendance at a parole revocation hearing. Smith v. Idaho Dep’t of Cor., 128 Idaho 768, 918 P.2d 1213 (1996).

§ 20-229A. Notice — Service — Waiver.

  1. Within fifteen (15) calendar days following arrest and detention on a warrant issued by the Idaho commission for pardons and parole, the alleged parole violator shall be personally served with a copy of the factual allegations of the violation of the conditions of parole by a state probation and parole officer, a law enforcement official or other as designated by the executive director. When accused of a violation of his parole, other than by absconding supervision or the commission of and conviction for a felony or misdemeanor, the alleged parole violator shall be advised of the right to an on-site parole revocation hearing and of procedural rights and privileges as provided by this act. The alleged parole violator, after service of the allegation of violations of the conditions of parole and the notification of rights, may waive the on-site parole revocation hearing as provided by section 20-229, Idaho Code. If the alleged parole violator waives the right to an on-site hearing, the commission, executive director or hearing officer shall designate the facility where the hearing will be conducted.
  2. Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole by absconding supervision or the commission of and conviction for a felony or misdemeanor under the laws of this state, or any other state, or any federal laws, and following arrest and detention on a warrant issued by the Idaho commission for pardons and parole, the alleged parole violator shall be personally served with a copy of the factual allegations of the violation of the conditions of parole within a reasonable time. The alleged parole violator shall be advised of the right to a hearing and all other rights and privileges as provided by this act. The executive director or hearing officer shall designate the facility where the hearing will be conducted. A fair and impartial hearing of the charges will be conducted within a reasonable time.
  3. The alleged parole violator may waive the right to any hearing, and at that time may admit one (1) or more of the alleged violations of the conditions of parole. If the waiver is accepted by the commission or hearing officer: (i) the parolee may be reinstated under the same or modified conditions, or (ii) the parolee shall be subject to an expedited determination by the commission consistent with the provisions of section 20-229B, Idaho Code, without a hearing. If all waivers made by the parolee are rejected by the commission or designated hearing officer, a parole revocation hearing shall be held either on-site or at a penitentiary facility.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-229A, as added by 1970, ch. 105, § 4, p. 263; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 12, p. 768; 1983, ch. 249, § 1, p. 670; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 5, p. 382; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 16, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.
Compiler’s Notes.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, added section designations and, in subsection (3), substituted “subject to an expedited determination by the commission consistent with the provisions of section 20-229B, Idaho Code, without a hearing” for “revoked and the parolee remanded to custody.” Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” at the end of the second sentence in subsection (1) refers to S.L. 1970, chapter 105, which is compiled as§§ 20-228 to 20-229B.

The term “this act” at the end of the second sentence in subsection (2) refers to S.L. 1994, chapter 171, which is codified as§§ 20-210, 20-213A and 20-228 to 20-229B.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 16 should take effect on and after March 1, 2015.

CASE NOTES

Notice.

Under this section, a sheriff is not required to provide the defendant with notice of the claimed parole violation, nor advise him of his right to a parole revocation hearing. Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1986).

Witnesses.

There is no constitutional right to compel witness attendance at a parole revocation hearing. Smith v. Idaho Dep’t of Cor., 128 Idaho 768, 918 P.2d 1213 (1996) (see§ 20-228A).

Cited

Gawron v. Roberts, 113 Idaho 330, 743 P.2d 983 (Ct. App. 1987).

§ 20-229B. Commission rulings.

  1. After a factual parole revocation hearing has been concluded, the member or members of the commission for pardons and parole or the designated hearing officer, having heard the matter, shall render a decision within twenty (20) days. If the alleged parole violator waives the parole hearing pursuant to the provisions of section 20-229A(3), Idaho Code, then a decision shall be entered upon acceptance of the waiver.
  2. If the member or members or hearing officer, having heard the matter, should conclude that the allegations of violation of the conditions of parole have not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, or those which have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence are not sufficient cause for the revocation of parole, then the parolee shall be reinstated on parole on the same or modified conditions of parole.
  3. If the member or members or hearing officer, having heard the matter, should conclude that the allegations of violation of the conditions of parole have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence and constitute sufficient cause for the revocation of parole, then a dispositional hearing shall be convened during a regular session of the commission to impose any sanctions up to and including executing an order of parole revocation and determine the period of time the parole violator shall be returned to state custody.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-229B, as added by 1970, ch. 105, § 5, p. 263; am. 1994, ch. 171, § 6, p. 382; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 17, p. 414; am. 2015, ch. 295, § 1, p. 1173; am. 2016, ch. 267, § 1, p. 719; am. 2017, ch. 182, § 5, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, divided the extant provisions of the section and added the subsection designations; added the last sentence in subsection (1); rewrote subsection (3); and added subsections (4) through (6).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 295, inserted “or the hearing officer” following “commission” near the end of the introductory paragraph in subsection (3), near the end of the introductory paragraph of subsection (4), and three times in subsection (5).

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 267, substituted “either conduct that is sexual or violent in nature or a formal charge” for “a conviction” near the end of the introductory paragraph of subsection (3).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 182, rewrote the section, deleting former subsections (4) through (6).

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1970, ch. 105 declared an emergency. Approved March 5, 1970.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150, as amended by S.L. 2015, ch. 184, § 1 provided that the amendment of this section by S.L. 2014, ch. 150, § 17 should take effect on and after October 1, 2015.

CASE NOTES

Applicability of Rules of Evidence.

The rules of evidence applicable to a judicial proceeding need not be observed at a parole revocation hearing. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

Clarification of Findings.

There is nothing which indicates that a court cannot remand to clarify findings, so long as the parole commission does not take additional evidence to supplement the record without providing a parolee due process. The record did not show that the commission supplemented the record in any way and accordingly the magistrate’s decision to remand the case without specifically delineating due process protections was sustained. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

Drug Tests.

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the parole commission’s finding that defendant used cannabinoids in violation of his parole agreement. Defendant took two drug tests, over six months apart, and failed both, even though the test was designed to eliminate the possibility that passive inhalation would register. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

Due Process.

Inmate’s due process rights were not violated because the commission on pardons and paroles rejected a hearing officer’s recommendation that the inmate be reinstated to parole; the commission had the sole authority to decide whether to revoke the inmate’s parole. Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634, 181 P.3d 1242 (2008), overruled on other grounds, Verska v. St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011).

The procedural safeguards that must be provided in parole revocation proceedings in order to comport with the constitutional right to due process were outlined by the United States supreme court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972). Matthews v. Jones, 147 Idaho 224, 207 P.3d 200 (Ct. App. 2009).

Hearing Officer.

Absent prejudice to the petitioner in his ability to present a defense caused by the delay, dismissal of parole violation charges and reinstatement of parole is not an available remedy for untimely entrance of a decision by a hearing officer. Matthews v. Jones, 147 Idaho 224, 207 P.3d 200 (Ct. App. 2009).

No Prejudice.

While this section and other parole revocation statutes can be read to vest final decision-making authority concerning revocation of parole in a single member of the commission or in a hearing officer, the parole revocation statutes, read in pari materia, vest authority to decide whether to revoke or continue parole solely in the full commission. Matthews v. Jones, 147 Idaho 224, 207 P.3d 200 (Ct. App. 2009).

Standard of Review.

A finding by the parole commission that a parole violation has occurred will not be overturned unless the reviewing court can say that the finding represents an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion will occur only if the finding of a violation is not supported by substantial reliable evidence or if the procedures followed deprive the parolee of due process. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

The plenary authority of the parole commission should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of its rightful discretion. The magistrate applied the correct standard of review to the commission’s decision to revoke parole once the magistrate was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that a parole violation had occurred. Craig v. State, 123 Idaho 121, 844 P.2d 1371 (Ct. App. 1992).

Witnesses.

There is no constitutional right to compel witness attendance at a parole revocation hearing. Smith v. Idaho Dep’t of Cor., 128 Idaho 768, 918 P.2d 1213 (1996) (see§ 20-228A).

§ 20-230. Application to convictions prior to act.

Provisions of this act so far as applicable thereto are to apply to all convicted persons now serving time in the state penitentiary to the end that at all times the same provisions relating to sentences, imprisonment, and paroles of prisoners shall apply to the inmate thereof.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 30, p. 59; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 13, p. 768.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” near the beginning of the section refers to S.L. 1947, chapter 53, which is codified as sections 20-202 to 20-209, 20-210, 20-211 to 20-213, 20-214, 20-216, 20-218, 20-219, 20-220 to 20-222, 20-224, 20-226, 20-228, 20-230, 20-233 to 20-237, 20-238, 20-239, 20-240, 20-241, 20-242, and 20-243 to 20-245.

CASE NOTES

Work Release Program.

The change in the State Correctional Institution policy discontinuing the work release program was not an ex post facto law and did not violate this section. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988).

Cited

Shain v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 77 Idaho 292, 291 P.2d 870 (1955).

§ 20-231. Immunity from parole or release of a prisoner.

Neither a public entity nor a public employee or servant shall be financially responsible or liable for any injury resulting from determining whether to parole or release a prisoner or from determining the terms or conditions of his parole or release or from determining whether to revoke his parole or release.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-231, as added by 1980, ch. 297, § 15, p. 768.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-231, which comprised S.L. 1947, ch. 53, § 31, p. 59, was repealed by S.L. 1980, ch. 297, § 14.

CASE NOTES

Tort Claims Act.

The immunity granted in this section is not affected by the Tort Claims Act. Pritchard v. State, 115 Idaho 111, 765 P.2d 136 (1988).

Unescorted Pass.

Where an inmate was given an 8-hour pass and he escaped and raped the plaintiff, this section granted the board of corrections immunity from tort liability as the 8-hour unescorted pass was a “release”. Walton v. State, 112 Idaho 503, 733 P.2d 724 (1987).

Cited

Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755 (1986).

§ 20-232. Remission of fine or penalty certified to court. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2020, ch. 60, § 2, effective July 1, 2020.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 32, p. 59; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 6, p. 1160; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 16, p. 768.

§ 20-233. Final discharge of parolee — Minimum term.

  1. When any paroled prisoner has performed the obligations of his parole for such time as shall satisfy the commission that his final release is not incompatible with his welfare and that of society, the commission may make the final order of discharge and issue to the paroled prisoner a certificate of discharge; but no such order of discharge shall be made in any case within a period of less than one (1) year after the date of release on parole, except that when the period of the maximum sentence provided by law shall expire at an earlier date, then a final order of discharge must be made and a certificate of discharge issued to the paroled prisoner not later than the date of expiration of said maximum sentence.
  2. The board of correction may submit a request to the commission for an order of final discharge from the remaining period of parole for any parolee under the board’s supervision at any time during the period of parole. A request for final discharge shall be supported by a statement attested to under oath or signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, setting forth the facts upon which the request is based. The commission shall notify the victim of a request for final discharge from parole. Any response to a request for final discharge shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal of the request. The commission may, without a hearing, rule upon a request for final discharge based on a review of the case, the request, the statement and any responses to the request, or may schedule a hearing on the request. The commission shall rule on the request for final discharge within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal of the request.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 33, p. 59; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 17, p. 768; am. 2014, ch. 150, § 18, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 150, designated the former section as subsection (1) and added subsection (2).

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the amendment of this section by section 18 should take effect on and after July 1, 2014.

CASE NOTES

Computing Sentence When Parole Revoked.

Neither this section nor§ 20-239 speaks to how one’s maximum sentence shall be computed, and when it will expire, if parole has been granted but subsequently revoked. The only section which speaks to this question is§ 20-228 and its plain language need not be modified by judicial construction to accommodate the other statutes; accordingly a judicially created exception to the express language of this section was not proper where it permitted a defendant’s parole time to count together with his prison time in calculating the duration of his sentence. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Parole Implications.

At the time of defendant’s change of plea, the court was neither constitutionally required nor mandated by Idaho law to inform defendant of the parole implications of this section before accepting his plea of guilty. Gee v. State, 117 Idaho 107, 785 P.2d 671 (Ct. App. 1990).

Cited

State v. Snapp, 113 Idaho 350, 743 P.2d 1003 (Ct. App. 1987); Bates v. Murphy, 118 Idaho 239, 796 P.2d 116 (1990).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Open Meeting Law.

As a statutory entity with authority to make decisions concerning paroles, pardons and commutations, the commission of pardons and parole is subject to the open meeting law and is required to open all meetings to the public except those conducted in executive session.OAG 85-9.

Applicability.

As to sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, February 1, 1987, the commission of pardons and parole may, pursuant to properly enacted rules and regulations, parole an inmate who is serving an indeterminate sentence and who has one or more consecutive sentences remaining to be served; when paroled, such an inmate would have a dual status as a parolee on the first sentence and as an inmate on the consecutive sentence or sentences.OAG 87-9.

The commission of pardons and parole may commute an indeterminate sentence to a lesser fixed term for the purpose of complying with the Prisoner Transfer Treaty between the United States and Mexico.OAG 93-3.

§ 20-234. Parole information to be transmitted to the sheriff and county prosecutor.

Whenever any person committed to the custody of the state board of correction shall have been granted a parole by the commission, it shall be the duty of the commission to transmit to the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney of the county within which said prisoner shall be paroled, a copy of the parole agreement, and information as to the place of residence of said prisoner within said county and the sheriff shall notify local law enforcement and other pertinent agencies.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 34, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 10, p. 425; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 6, p. 28; am. 1980, ch. 297, § 18, p. 768; am. 1984, ch. 85, § 1, p. 168.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

§ 20-235. Certification and warrants for expenses.

The chairman of the state board of correction, or his designee, is hereby authorized to certify all sums to be expended by said board in carrying out the purpose of this act to the state board of examiners, and the state board of examiners, upon the approval of said sums, shall cause the state controller to draw warrants for the amount of the same.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 35, p. 59; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 7, p. 28; am. 1994, ch. 180, § 12, p. 420.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of examiners,§ 67-2001 et seq.

State controller,§ 67-1001 et seq.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” near the middle of the section refers to S.L. 1947, chapter 53, which is codified as sections 20-202 to 20-209, 20-210, 20-211 to 20-213, 20-214, 20-216, 20-218, 20-219, 20-220 to 20-222, 20-224, 20-226, 20-228, 20-230, 20-233 to 20-237, 20-238, 20-239, 20-240, 20-241, 20-242, and 20-243 to 20-245.

Effective Dates.

Section 14 of S.L. 1974, ch. 6 provided the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1974.

Section 241 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180 provided that such act should become effective on and after the first Monday in January, 1995 [January 2, 1995] if the amendment to the Constitution of Idaho changing the name of the state auditor to state controller [1994 S.J.R. No. 109, p. 1493] was adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1994. Since such amendment was adopted, the amendment to this section by § 12 of S.L. 1994, ch. 180 became effective January 2, 1995.

§ 20-236. Members or employees of board not to be interested in contracts — Penalty for violation.

No member or employee of the state board of correction shall be interested directly or indirectly in any manner in contracts for furnishing the penitentiary or any property used in connection therewith or inmates thereof, any supplies, materials, equipment, or for the use of said institution. Nor shall any officer or employee be permitted to receive in any way perquisites for themselves or family, or any compensation or reward from any contractor or employee or other person. Should any officer or employee violate, or wilfully or negligently fail to observe the provisions and prohibitions of this section, he shall be at once dismissed from office by the state board of correction; and further, upon conviction of such violation by a court of competent jurisdiction, he shall be fined a sum not exceeding $1,000.00 and not less than one month’s pay, and shall forfeit his interest in any and all contracts or rewards he may have received or agreed to receive in violation of the provisions of this section.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 36, p. 59.

§ 20-237. Transmission of convicted persons to penitentiary or custody of board — Notice of conviction to director — Transported by guards — Time for notice.

When any person is convicted in any court of the state and sentenced to imprisonment and committed to the custody of the state board of correction, or sentenced to suffer the death penalty, the sheriff of the county in which such conviction shall have been had shall immediately, upon passing of sentence, notify the director that a person is in his custody. Such notice shall be transmitted by either telegraph or telephone, followed by a written confirmation by certified mail. As soon as possible upon receipt of such notice, the director shall dispatch one or more correctional officers, as may be necessary, from the department to the place where the convicted person is detained, to secure and convey said convicted person to any department of correction facility, or other facility within the state designated by the state board of correction. The convicted person, a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the presentence investigation report, if any, a copy of any disciplinary reports filed against the convicted person while in the sheriff’s custody and all of the additional documents and allowable personal property, including medications as set forth in section 20-243, Idaho Code, shall be delivered into the custody of the director or his representative at the time of or prior to the delivery of the convicted person to the department. If all such records, documents, and property are not delivered at that time, the director or his representative may refuse to accept or transport the convicted person to a department facility.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 37, p. 59; am. 1967, ch. 364, § 3, p. 1052; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 7, p. 1160; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 11, p. 425; am. 1991, ch. 116, § 1, p. 244.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Director of correction,§ 20-217A.

Fee of sheriff for taking prisoner to or from prison,§ 31-3203.

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1991, ch. 116 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 1991.

CASE NOTES

Delaying Receipt of State Inmates.

The entire statutory scheme of Title 20 of the Idaho Code presupposes that state prisoners will be housed in the state prison under the control and custody of the department of correction and county prisoners will be housed in the county jails under the control and custody of the county sheriffs; therefore, the language “as soon as possible” contained in this section extends only to logistical and scheduling considerations of dispatching prison personnel to various jails throughout the state, but not to other operational considerations of the penitentiary. Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

This section does not allow the director of the Idaho department of correction the discretion to delay receipt of state inmates housed at the county jail until room is available at a state facility to accept them. Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

Presentence Investigation Report.

This section requires the district court to provide the department of correction with a copy of a defendant’s presentence investigation report. This section does not limit the period of time that the department may retain the copy of the PSI, nor does it or any other statute authorize the court to demand the return of a PSI. The court has no authority to determine the record retention policies of the department, an agency of the executive branch. State v. Moore, 150 Idaho 17, 244 P.3d 161 (2010).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Prisoner Transport.

It is the responsibility of the sheriff and an expense to his or her county to transport an inmate from the prison back to the county where the inmate’s attendance in court is required; however, in the case of female prisoners, clear statutory language places the responsibility upon the state board of corrections.OAG 83-11. (see§ 20-237A).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 20-237A. Funding per diem costs of state prisoners housed in county jails, related additional expenses and manner of payment.

  1. The board of correction shall pay each county for housing prisoners convicted, sentenced and committed to the custody of the state board of correction, including probationers and parolees committed to a county jail under section 20-219(7)(b), Idaho Code, beginning on the day after receipt by the director of notice that a person is in custody, as provided in section 20-237, Idaho Code.
  2. The state board of correction shall pay counties housing state-sentenced prisoners a minimum rate of fifty-five dollars ($55.00) per day per inmate for the first seven (7) days of custody and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per day per inmate thereafter. Nothing stated herein will prohibit the state board of correction from entering into a contract with a county pursuant to section 20-241, Idaho Code.
  3. In addition to payment of per diem costs as provided in this section, the state board of correction shall pay for all ordinary and necessary medical and dental expenses of state prisoners housed in county jails.
  4. As between themselves, the state board of correction and each of the counties will be responsible for their pro rata share of any property damages or personal injuries arising from the housing of state-sentenced prisoners, which is attributable to their respective negligence or otherwise wrongful conduct. This provision shall not alter or affect any immunities or exceptions to governmental liability the state or counties may possess as to private persons pursuant to the Idaho tort claims act, chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code.
  5. The legislature shall appropriate sufficient funds annually to the department of correction to make all payments to counties as required in this section.
  6. The county sheriffs shall bill the department of correction at least every sixty (60) days. The department of correction shall pay such bills within sixty (60) days of their receipt.
  7. The germane committees of the legislature shall review the costs of housing inmates in county jails every three (3) years beginning in 2004.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-237A, as added by 1992, ch. 80, § 1, p. 221; am. 2000, ch. 135, § 1, p. 354; am. 2014, ch. 239, § 1, p. 603; am. 2015, ch. 103, § 1, p. 246; am. 2018, ch. 122, § 1, p. 259.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 239, redesignated existing subsections (a) through (g) as subsections (1) through (7) and substituted “forty-five dollars ($45.00)” for “forty dollars ($40.00)” in subsection (2).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 103, inserted “including probationers and parolees committed to a county jail under section 20-219(7)(b), Idaho Code” near the middle of subsection (1).

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 122, in subsection (2), substituted “fifty-five dollars ($55.00) per day per inmate for the first seven (7) days of custody and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per day per inmate thereafter” for “forty-five dollars ($45.00) per day, per inmate” in the first sentence.

§ 20-237B. Medical costs of state prisoners housed in correctional facilities.

  1. The state board of correction or any privatized medical provider under contract with the department of correction shall pay to a provider of a medical service, other than hospital inpatient or outpatient services, for any and all prisoners, committed to the custody of the department of correction, confined in a correctional facility, as defined in section 18-101A(1), Idaho Code, an amount equal to the reimbursement rates of the Idaho medicaid reimbursement fee schedule in place at the time services are provided. Hospitals shall be paid for inpatient and outpatient facility services provided to such prisoners in an amount equal to the interim Idaho medicaid rates in place at the time of service except for outpatient services paid by Idaho medicaid according to the Idaho medicaid fee schedule. These limitations apply to all medical care services provided outside the facility, including inpatient and outpatient hospitalizations, emergency services, professional services, durable and nondurable goods, prescription drugs and medications provided to any and all prisoners confined in a correctional facility, as defined in section 18-101A(1), Idaho Code. For services that are not included in the Idaho medicaid fee schedule or the interim Idaho medicaid rates, the state board of correction or any privatized medical provider under contract with the department of correction shall pay the reasonable value of such service. If a privatized medical provider is contracted with the department of correction, no hospital or any medical services provider shall be required to provide medical services to prisoners, except for emergency hospital services, in the absence of a contract between the privatized medical provider and the hospital or medical services provider. Any contract between the department of correction and a privatized medical provider must contain a requirement that the privatized medical provider enter into contracts with each hospital providing non-emergency services outside of the correctional facility. The contract between the privatized medical provider and the department of correction shall require, and the contracts between the privatized medical provider and any hospital or non-hospital providers shall include, at least the following terms reasonably and practicably consistent with those used by Idaho medicaid:
    1. Claims adjudication processing;
    2. Timing;
    3. Payment;
    4. Authorizations;
    5. Utilization review;
    6. Audit; and
    7. Appeals processes.
  2. Subsection (1) of this section shall apply only to companies, professional associations and other health care service entities whose services are billed directly to the department of correction or any privatized medical provider under contract with the department of correction. Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
    1. Privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the department of correction to provide health care to prison inmates;
    2. Private prison companies;
    3. Out-of-state correctional facilities contracting with the department of correction to house prisoners;
    4. County jails; and
    5. Companies, professional associations and other health care service entities whose services are provided within the terms of agreements with privatized correctional medical providers under contract with private prison companies and county jails.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-237B, as added by 2005, ch. 157, § 1, p. 487; am. 2008, ch. 61, § 1, p. 153; am. 2018, ch. 321, § 2, p. 749.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2008 amendment, by ch. 61, inserted “committed to the custody of the department of correction” in the first sentence in subsection (1).

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 321, rewrote the section to specifically state that a privatized medical provider under contract with the department of correction is authorized to pay health care providers for medical services provided outside of the correctional institutions an amount no greater than Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Legislative Intent.

Section 1 of S.L. 2018, ch. 321 provided: “Legislative Intent. It is the intent of the Legislature that any amendments to Section 20-237B, Idaho Code, shall no apply retroactively to any hospital medical services or non-hospital medical services provided before the enactment of this act.”

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 2018, ch. 321 declared an emergency. Approved March 27, 2018.

CASE NOTES

Privatized Medical Care.

Neither Idaho Const., art. X, § 5 nor§ 20-201A(1) say anything of privatized medical care providers under contract with the Idaho department of correction (IDOC); thus, the state board of correction, referenced in subsection (1), does not include privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC. In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018). In§§ 20-201, 20-201A, and 20-210, the legislature says nothing of privatized medical care providers under contract with the Idaho department of correction (IDOC); consequently, the department of correction, referenced in subsection (2), does not include privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC. In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018).

While this section prohibits the state board of correction and the department of correction from paying more than the Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rate to a provider of a medical service whose services are billed directly to the department of correction, this section has no application to privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the Idaho department of correction to provide healthcare services to IDOC inmates in custody and to indemnify IDOC from any claims associated with those services. In re Decision on Joint Motion to Certify Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court, 165 Idaho 298, 444 P.3d 870 (2018).

§ 20-238. Clothing and transportation to be furnished prisoners upon parole or final discharge.

Upon the release of any convicted person upon parole the state board of correction shall provide him or her with necessary wearing apparel and may also provide him or her with a bus or railroad transportation ticket to the place designated for parole, together with sufficient cash to procure meals in transit. Upon final discharge from the penitentiary, the board shall provide the convicted person with similar clothing and may furnish transportation and cash for meals to his home, or to the place from which the convicted person was committed to the penitentiary.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 38, p. 59.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Snapp, 113 Idaho 350, 743 P.2d 1003 (Ct. App. 1987).

§ 20-239. Discharge upon service of maximum term.

Any convicted person undergoing sentence in the penitentiary not sooner released under the provisions of this chapter, shall in accordance with the provisions of existing law, be discharged from custody upon serving a maximum sentence provided by law for the offense of which such person was convicted, or the maximum term fixed by the court where the law does not provide for a maximum term. Provided however, if the date of discharge from custody falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the person may be discharged from custody on the last weekday immediately preceding such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 39, p. 59; am. 2007, ch. 32, § 1, p. 74.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 32, in the first sentence, substituted “chapter” for “act” and “upon” for “on,” and added the last sentence.

CASE NOTES

Neither§ 20-233 nor this section speaks to how one’s maximum sentence shall be computed, and when it will expire, if parole has been granted but subsequently revoked. The only section which speaks to this question is§ 20-228 and its plain language need not be modified by judicial construction to accommodate the other statutes; accordingly a judicially created exception to the express language of this section was not proper where it permitted a defendant’s parole time to count together with his prison time in calculating the duration of his sentence. Winter v. State, 117 Idaho 103, 785 P.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1989).

Cited

State v. Snapp, 113 Idaho 350, 743 P.2d 1003 (Ct. App. 1987).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indeterminate Sentence.

As to sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, February 1, 1987, the commission of pardons and parole may, pursuant to properly enacted rules and regulations, parole an inmate who is serving an indeterminate sentence and who has one or more consecutive sentences remaining to be served; when paroled, such an inmate would have a dual status as a parolee on the first sentence and as an inmate on the consecutive sentence or sentences.OAG 87-9.

§ 20-239A. Release upon grant of parole.

Any convicted person undergoing sentence in the penitentiary who has a parole eligibility date which falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday may be granted a parole release date by the Idaho commission for pardons and parole which falls on the last weekday immediately preceding such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-239A, as added by 2008, ch. 42, § 1, p. 99.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210.

§ 20-240. Respites and reprieves.

  1. The governor shall have power to grant respites or reprieves in all cases of convictions for offenses against the state, except treason or imprisonment on impeachment, but such respites or reprieves shall not extend beyond the next session of the commission; and such commission shall at such session continue or determine such respite or reprieve, or may commute or pardon the offense as herein provided.
  2. In cases of conviction of treason, the governor shall have the power to suspend the execution of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the legislature at its next regular session, when the legislature shall either pardon or commute the sentence, direct its execution or grant a further reprieve.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 40, p. 59; 1969, ch. 419, § 8, p. 1160; am. 1988, ch. 323, § 1, p. 982; am. 2020, ch. 62, § 1, p. 145.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Governor may grant respites and reprieves, Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 7.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 62, rewrote the section, moving provisions relating to commutations and pardons by the commission of pardons and parole to newly created§ 20-240A.

§ 20-240A. Commutations and pardons.

  1. The commission shall have full and final authority to grant commutations and pardons after conviction and judgment in all cases of offenses against the state except treason or impeachment and as otherwise provided in this section.
  2. With respect to commutations and pardons for offenses, or conspiracies to commit any offense, for which the maximum punishment allowed by law at the time of sentencing is death or life imprisonment, the commission’s determination shall only constitute a recommendation subject to approval or disapproval by the governor. No commutation or pardon for such offenses shall be effective until presented to and approved by the governor. Any commutation or pardon recommendation not so approved within thirty (30) days of the commission’s recommendation shall be deemed denied.
  3. Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, the commission shall have full and final authority to grant pardons and commutations for:
    1. Any offense in violation of chapter 27, title 37, Idaho Code, for which the maximum punishment allowed by law at the time of sentencing is life imprisonment; and
    2. Any offense for which the maximum punishment allowed by law at the time of sentencing is enhanced by chapter 25, title 19, Idaho Code, to life imprisonment.
  4. The commission shall conduct commutation and pardon proceedings pursuant to rules and regulations adopted in accordance with law and may attach such conditions as it deems appropriate in granting pardons or commutations.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-240A, as added by 2020, ch. 62, § 2, p. 145.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210.

Compiler’s Notes.

Prior to the enactment of this section, similar provisions were found in§ 20-240.

CASE NOTES

Decisions Under Prior Law
Effect of Pardon.

Defendant’s pardon under Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 7 and this section was not a complete removal of the conviction from defendant’s record, allowing a later court to include that conviction while calculating the defendant’s criminal history. United States v. Bays, 589 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2009).

Power of Board to Grant.

The board of pardons [now commission of pardons and parole], created by the Constitution, has power to remit fines and forfeitures and to grant commutations and pardons after conviction and judgment, and the governor has the power to grant respites and reprieves. State v. Iverson, 79 Idaho 25, 310 P.2d 803 (1957).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Commutation Power.

The Idaho commission for pardons and parole does have the power to commute a sentence during a fixed term under the Unified Sentencing Act.OAG 94-3.

§ 20-240B. Notice of pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures.

When, by action of the commission or the governor, a pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures is granted as provided by law, the executive director shall:

  1. Retain an original pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures document at the commission;
  2. File a copy of the original pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures document in the office of the secretary of state;
  3. Provide an original pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures document to the individual petitioner;
  4. File notice with the state courts, in a manner approved by the supreme court, that a pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures has been granted in the case; and
  5. Provide such additional notice that a pardon, commutation, or remission of fines and forfeitures has been granted as the commission may adopt by rule.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-240B, as added by 2020, ch. 60, § 1, p. 143.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Commission of pardons and parole,§ 20-210.

Secretary of state,§ 67-901 et seq.

§ 20-241. Acceptance of federal or other funds or property.

The state board of correction, with the written consent of the governor, shall have the power and it shall be its duty:

  1. To accept from the United States of America or any of its agencies, such funds, equipment, and supplies as may be made available to this state for any of the purposes contemplated by law, and to enter into such contract and agreements with the United States or any of its agencies, or other states, as may be necessary, proper and convenient, not contrary to the laws of the state.
  2. To enter into an agreement with the board of county commissioners of any county, or with the governing officials of any municipality of this state for the payment by said county or municipality of all or any part of the cost of performance by the state board of correction of any parole or probation services or the supervision of any parole or probation case arising within the said county or municipality, as the case may be, or the maintenance therein of work camps as authorized by law.
  3. To accept any grant or donation of land or any gift of money or valuable thing made to the state for any of the purposes contemplated by law.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 41, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 12, p. 425; am. 1997, ch. 223, § 2, p. 655.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

§ 20-241A. Agreements for confinement of inmates.

The state board of correction shall have the power and it shall be its duty:

  1. To determine the availability of state facilities suitable for the detention and confinement of prisoners held under authority of state law. If the state board of correction determines that suitable state facilities are not available, it may enter into an agreement with the proper authorities of the United States, another state, a political subdivision of this state or another state, or a private prison contractor, to provide for the safekeeping, care, subsistence, proper government, discipline, and to provide programs for the reformation, rehabilitation and treatment of prisoners. Facilities made available to the state board of correction by agreement may be in this state, or in any other state, territory or possession of the United States. The state board of correction shall not enter into an agreement with an authority unable to provide the degree or kind of safekeeping, care and subsistence required by state or federal laws, the constitution of the state of Idaho, the United States constitution, and the rules adopted by the state board of correction. All contracts or agreements entered into by the state board of correction and a private prison contractor shall be subject to the provisions of this section and section 20-209, Idaho Code.
    1. An authority or private prison contractor, receiving physical custody for the purpose of incarceration of a person sentenced by a court under the terms of an agreement made under this section, shall be considered as acting solely as an agent of this state. This state retains jurisdiction over a person incarcerated in an institution of another state, the United States, a political subdivision of this state or another state, or of a private institution;
    2. The attorney general of this state shall enforce an agreement or contract made under this section in a civil suit.
  2. The state board of correction shall have the authority to enter into contracts with private prison contractors for the site selection, design, design/building, acquisition, construction, construction management, maintenance, leasing, leasing/purchasing, management or operation of private prison facilities or any combination of these services, subject to the following requirements and limitations:
    1. Any request for proposals, any original contract, any contract renewal, any price or cost adjustment or any other amendment to any contract for the incarceration of individuals in a private institution, shall be reviewed by the board of correction;
    2. No contract authorized by the provisions of this section shall be awarded until the private prison contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the state board of correction that the contractor possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to provide the services specified in the contract; that the contractor can provide the necessary qualified personnel to implement the terms of the contract; that the financial condition of the contractor is such that the terms of the contract can be fulfilled; that the contractor has the ability to comply with applicable court orders and corrections standards; and that the proposed private prison facilities or the correctional services proposed by the contractor meet constitutional minimums;
    3. No contract authorized by the provisions of this section shall be awarded until the private prison contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the state board of correction that the contractor can obtain insurance or provide self-insurance to indemnify the state against possible claims arising from the operation of prison facilities by the contractor, and to compensate the state for any losses incurred due to the operation of prison facilities;
    4. Contracts awarded to private prison contractors pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be entered into for a period specified in each contract, subject to availability of funds annually appropriated by the Idaho legislature for that purpose. No contract awarded pursuant to this section shall provide for the encumbrance of funds beyond the amount available for a fiscal year;
    5. A contract may provide for annual contract price or cost adjustments, except that any adjustments may be made only once each year effective on the anniversary of the effective date of the contract.
  3. Any contract between the state board of correction and a private prison contractor, whereby the contractor provides for the housing, care, and control of inmates in a nondepartmental facility operated by the contractor, shall contain, in addition to other provisions, terms and conditions:
    1. A requirement that the contractor is to provide said services in a facility which meets standards as required by the Idaho department of correction;
    2. If a private prison institution is to be located in the state of Idaho on private land, it shall be required that the contractor obtain written authorization from the governing board of any municipality in which the facility is to be located, or if the facility is not to be located within the municipality, written authorization from the board of county commissioners of the county in which the facility is to be located;
    3. A requirement that the private prison contractor shall provide training to its personnel to a level acceptable to the Idaho department of correction. The Idaho department of correction may provide training to the personnel of a private prison contractor and may charge a reasonable fee for the training, not to exceed the cost of training. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to confer peace officer status upon any employee of the private prison contractor or to authorize the use of firearms except to prevent escape from the facility or from custody while being transported to or from the facility or to prevent an act which would cause death or serious bodily injury to any person. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to confer Idaho state employee status upon any employee of the private prison contractor;
    4. A requirement that any private prison contractor operating a facility that houses prisoners pursuant to a contract between the contractor and the state board of correction shall cooperate with the Idaho department of correction for the prevention and suppression of serious disturbances, including riots, escapes, affrays or insurrections, at the private prison facilities. To effectuate this provision, the contract shall, at a minimum, provide:
      1. For participation by the private prison contractor in multiagency training for the preventing and responding to serious disturbances at a private prison facility;
      2. For participation by the private prison contractor in multiagency agreements for the prevention of and response to serious disturbances at a private prison facility and reimbursement for emergency services provided by governmental entities;
      3. For notification by the private prison contractor to the director of the Idaho department of correction in the event of a serious disturbance at a private prison facility and for consultation by the director of the Idaho department of correction with the private prison contractor prior to a response by the director of the Idaho department of correction;
      4. That the private prison contractor shall provide access to the private prison facility for the Idaho department of correction and such other governmental entities or agencies as the Idaho department of correction may designate, including space to establish a command post, for responding to a serious disturbance; (v) That, in the event of a serious disturbance, the private prison contractor shall participate in a unified command structure under the director of the Idaho department of correction until, in the director of the Idaho department of correction’s discretion, the serious disturbance is resolved.
  4. Contracts awarded under the provisions of this section shall, at a minimum, comply with the following:
    1. Provide for internal and perimeter security to protect the public, employees and inmates;
    2. Provide that the private prison contractor shall not benefit financially from the labor of inmates nor shall any inmate ever be placed in a position of authority over another inmate. Any profits realized from the operation of a prison enterprise program shall revert to the department of correction or appropriate governmental authority. Private prison contractors may work with the Idaho department of correction in setting up work and training programs. Private prison contractors shall be authorized to purchase services and commodities from the Idaho department of correction which are necessary for implementing work or training opportunities as outlined in this section;
    3. Impose discipline on inmates only in accordance with applicable Idaho department of correction rules and procedures;
    4. Provide proper food, clothing, housing and medical care as provided for in the contract.
  5. A private prison contractor, in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under contract with the state board of correction, shall not be bound by the enactments of the legislature which govern the appointment, qualifications, duties, salaries or benefits of wardens, managers or other correctional employees. No employee of the private prison contractor shall be considered an employee of the state of Idaho. A private prison contractor shall not employ any person who does not satisfy the board of correction’s personnel policies.
  6. The director of the Idaho department of correction or his designee shall monitor the performance of the private prison contractor. In all such contracts the state shall retain clear supervisory and monitoring powers over the operation and management of the private institutions to insure that the inmates are properly cared for and that the employees of the facility and the public are adequately protected. Included in the powers and responsibilities of the director of the Idaho department of correction or his designee when acting as the chief contract monitor of the private prison contract are:
    1. Approval of all inmate releases on furlough or work release;
    2. Approval of the type of work offenders may perform pursuant to this section and review and approval of any incentive pay plan presented by the private prison contractor for offender pay;
    3. Approval of the training program for the private prison contractor’s employees;
    4. A determination if the minimum requirements of the contract are being satisfactorily performed;
    5. Promulgation of rules interpreting or making specific application of the provisions of this section;
    6. A determination if appropriate policies and procedures of the Idaho department of correction are being followed by the private prison contractor and its personnel;
    7. The duty, as set forth in section 20-209B, Idaho Code, to prevent, control and suppress serious disturbances, including riots, escapes, affrays and insurrections at a private prison facility that houses prisoners pursuant to a contract between the private prison contractor and the state board of correction, that, in the director of the Idaho department of correction’s discretion, threaten the health, safety, security and property of the facility, facility staff, prisoners, the public and the state of Idaho. This duty shall be exercised in the director of the Idaho department of correction’s discretion after consultation with the private prison contractor. The director of the Idaho department of correction shall designate personnel and facilities under the control of the state board of correction and shall enter into such agreements as deemed necessary with other governmental entities, to respond to serious disturbances at a private prison facility. (7) No contract for correctional services may authorize, allow, or imply a delegation of authority or responsibility to a private prison contractor which would allow the contractor to:

(a) Develop or implement procedures for calculating inmate release dates;

(b) Approve the type of work inmates may perform and the wages which may be given to inmates engaging in the work;

(c) Place an inmate under less restrictive custody or more restrictive custody or take any disciplinary actions contrary to rules and procedures approved by the Idaho department of correction;

(d) Develop or implement procedures regarding the care, custody and treatment of inmates which are contrary to the Idaho department of correction’s policies and procedures, state or federal law.

(8) Any offense, which if committed in a state institution or facility would be a crime, including escape, shall also be a crime if committed by or with regard to offenders assigned to an institution or facility operated pursuant to a contract between the state and a private prison contractor.

(9) Any reference in the Idaho Code to imprisonment in a state penitentiary, or state prison, or incarceration under the control and custody of the Idaho board of correction shall be interpreted to include incarceration in a private prison facility.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-241A, as added by 1997, ch. 223, § 3, p. 655; am. 2010, ch. 351, § 3, p. 915.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Attorney general,§ 67-1401 et seq.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

State board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Amendments.

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 351, added paragraphs (3)(d) and (6)(g).

Effective Dates.

Section 4 of S.L. 1997, ch. 223 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1997.

Section 4 of S.L. 2010, ch. 351 declared an emergency and applied to contracts entered into or renewed on and after its passage and approval. Approved April 12, 2010.

§ 20-242. Furlough.

  1. When a person is committed to the custody of the state board of correction, the board may, upon conditions which it may impose, direct that the person be permitted to continue in his regular employment, work project, or educational program, if that is compatible with the requirements of subsection 3 of this section, or may authorize the person to secure employment for himself.
  2. If the board directs that the prisoner be permitted to continue in his regular employment or education, the board shall arrange for a continuation of the employment or education so far as possible without interruption. If the prisoner does not have regular employment, and the board has authorized the prisoner to secure employment for himself, the prisoner may do so, and the board may assist him in doing so.
  3. Whenever the prisoner is not employed and between the hours or periods of employment, work project, or schooling, he shall be domiciled in a jail, facility, or residence as directed by the board of correction.
  4. The earnings of the prisoner shall be retained by the prisoner under such terms and conditions as the board may impose. From such earnings the board may require that:
  1. a. the prisoner pay an amount to the board of correction sufficient for the prisoner’s board and personal expenses, both inside and outside the jail, facility, or residence, including costs of administering such prisoner’s work furlough program;
  2. b. the prisoner provide for the reasonable and adequate support and maintenance of the prisoner’s dependents;
  3. c. the prisoner pay preexisting debts;
  4. d. the prisoner deposit earnings in a financial institution.

5. If the prisoner violates the conditions established for his conduct, custody or employment, the board may order the balance of the prisoner’s sentence to be spent in actual confinement.

6. The wilful failure of a prisoner to return to the place of confinement not later than the expiration of any period during which he is authorized to be away from the place of confinement under this section is an escape from the place of confinement and is punishable as provided by section 18-2505, Idaho Code.

7. A furlough may be revoked by the board at any time without notice or hearing.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 42, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 13, p. 425; am. 1979, ch. 215, § 1, p. 599; am. 1984, ch. 58, § 1, p. 106.

CASE NOTES

Work Release Program.

A change in the state correctional institution policy discontinuing the work release program was not an ex post facto law and did not violate§ 20-230. Mellinger v. Idaho Dep’t of Cors., 114 Idaho 494, 757 P.2d 1213 (Ct. App. 1988). Subsection (7) of this section gives the state complete discretion to remove an inmate from a work release center. Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1989).

Cited

State v. Breeding, 116 Idaho 569, 777 P.2d 1242 (Ct. App. 1989).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Furloughs.

Because a furlough is not actually a release, but simply an alternate form of continued confinement, the board of correction can furlough a prisoner at any time, provided the statutory directions of this section are followed.OAG 87-5.

§ 20-242A. Inmate incentive pay.

The board of correction is hereby authorized to institute an incentive pay program for those inmates performing work at the direction of the board of correction in jobs not associated with correctional industry employment.

Such compensation, if any, shall be in accordance with a graduated schedule based on quantity and quality of work performed and skill required for its performance.

Nothing in this section is intended to restore, in whole or in part, the civil rights of any inmate. No inmate compensated under this section shall be considered an employee of the state or the board of correction, nor shall any inmate be eligible for worker’s compensation under title 72, Idaho Code, or be entitled to any benefits thereunder whether on behalf of himself or any other person.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-242A, as added by 1970, ch. 16, § 1, p. 31; am. 1972, ch. 234, § 1, p. 615; am. 2015, ch. 111, § 1, p. 279.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 111, rewrote this section, which formerly read: “The board of correction is hereby authorized to institute an incentive pay program for those inmates performing at a meritorious level but who are not privileged to participate in prison industry employment. Such incentive pay shall be funded by the state penal betterment fund as provided in section 20-405. No such incentive pay shall be paid to any inmate who is receiving pay as provided by section 20-409. Such incentive pay shall not exceed that amount paid to inmates under the provisions of section 20-409”.

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 1970, ch. 16 declared an emergency. Approved February 10, 1970.

§ 20-243. Delivery of convicted person to penitentiary or board — Copy of commitment — Receipt for delivery of prisoner.

When any convicted person is delivered to the penitentiary or to the custody of the board of correction, the officer having the prisoner in charge shall deliver to the state board of correction or such official, as the board may designate:

  1. A certified copy of the commitment received by such officer from the clerk of the court where the convicted person was tried, and such certified copy of the commitment shall be evidence of the fact therein contained;
  2. A copy or summary of such medical records of the prisoner as may have been prepared or received by the agency or institution from whose custody the prisoner is being delivered, including at least a written report of any suicide attempts, abnormal behavior, seizures or other significant facts affecting the prisoner’s medical condition which were observed during his confinement prior to the delivery;
  3. All unused portions of medications prescribed to the prisoner while in custody and any legitimate prescription medication in the prisoner’s possession when taken into custody;

and shall take from such official a certificate of the delivery of such convicted person.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 43, p. 59; am. 1970, ch. 143, § 14, p. 425; am. 1982, ch. 98, § 1, p. 277.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 15 of S.L. 1970, ch. 143 read: “This act shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1970, except paragraph 6, section 3, of former section 19-2601, Idaho Code, which shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1971.”

Section 2 of S.L. 1982, ch. 98 declared an emergency. Approved March 18, 1982.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Prisoner Transportation.

It is the responsibility of the sheriff and an expense to his or her county to transport an inmate from the prison back to the county where the inmate’s attendance in court is required; however, in the case of female prisoners, clear statutory language places the responsibility upon the state board of corrections.OAG 83-11.

§ 20-244. Government and discipline of the correctional facility — Rules and regulations.

The state board of correction shall make and adopt such rules and regulations for the government and discipline of the correctional facility as they may consider expedient, and from time to time, change and amend the same as circumstances may require. A printed copy of the rules and regulations shall be furnished to every officer and guard at the time he is appointed, and so much thereof as relates to the duties and obligations of the convicted persons shall be given to the convicted person upon reception at the state’s correctional institutions.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 44, p. 59; am. 1984, ch. 178, § 1, p. 425.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Waggoner v. State, 121 Idaho 758, 828 P.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1991); Swain v. State, 122 Idaho 918, 841 P.2d 448 (Ct. App. 1992).

§ 20-245. Offender labor on state and community service projects.

  1. Offender labor on state projects. The state board of correction shall have the authority to use, under such rules as they may prescribe, the labor of offenders either within or without the walls of the penitentiary and on all public works done under the direct control of the state; that offender labor under control of the state board of correction shall manufacture and repair state highway signs, except for highways and projects where federal regulations would prohibit the use of signs so manufactured; provided, that so far as practicable any manufacture conducted within the walls shall be in connection with metal motor license plates, road or street signs furnished by the state or used by its municipalities, wearing apparel, articles and containers, for state use in the various departments or institutions of the state not for sale upon the open market. When any product produced by the offender shall be used by any department or other institution of the state, the current appropriation shall receive from such department or institution such reimbursement therefor as may be fixed by the state board of correction with the approval of the state board of examiners.
  2. Offender labor on community service projects. The state board of correction shall have the authority to assign parolees under department of correction supervision, probationers under court order or department of correction supervision and offender residents of community work centers under the direction or order of the board of correction, as community service workers as set forth in section 72-102(6), Idaho Code. The state board of correction shall have the authority to charge offenders performing community service work an hourly fee in an amount to be determined by the state insurance fund, to be remitted to the state insurance fund for purposes of providing worker’s compensation insurance for parolees, probationers or community work center residents assigned as community service workers.

History.

1947, ch. 53, § 45, p. 59; am. 1957, ch. 207, § 1, p. 434; am. 2004, ch. 149, § 2, p. 479; am. 2006, ch. 206, § 3, p. 627.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Convict-made goods,§ 20-401 et seq.

State board of examiners,§ 67-2001 et seq.

State insurance fund,§ 72-901 et seq.

Amendments.
Compiler’s Notes.

The 2006 amendment, by ch. 206, updated the section reference in subsection (2). Compiler’s Notes.

Section 46 of S.L. 1947, ch. 53 provided: “All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith, including chapters 38 and 39, Title 19; Chapter 1, Title 20, excepting only Section 20-101; Chapter 3, Title 20; Chapter 4, Title 20, all Idaho Code Annotated, are hereby repealed.”

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 2004, ch. 149 declared an emergency. Approved March 23, 2004.

CASE NOTES

Injuries Noncompensable.

State penitentiary prisoner was not entitled to recover compensation for injuries sustained while working in the license plate factory under a prison work project authorized by state board of correction. Shain v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 77 Idaho 292, 291 P.2d 870 (1955).

Cited

Crawford v. Department of Cor., 133 Idaho 633, 991 P.2d 358 (1999).

§ 20-246. Penitentiary — Powers of board of correction.

All transactions and dealings of the state penitentiary and its properties shall be conducted in the name of the board of correction. The board shall be capable in law of suing in all courts and places in all matters concerning the said penitentiary and is hereby authorized to sue for and recover all sums of money or property due from any person to the people of the state on account of said penitentiary.

History.

1949, ch. 67, § 1, p. 113; am. 1969, ch. 419, § 9, p. 1160.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 10 of S.L. 1969, ch. 419 declared an emergency. Approved April 7, 1969.

§ 20-247. Transfer of prisoner to federal penal or correctional institution.

Any person committed to the state penitentiary whose presence may be seriously detrimental to the well-being of the state penitentiary or who wilfully and persistently refuses to obey the rules and regulations of the state penitentiary or who is considered an incorrigible inmate may, upon written certification from the state board of correction, be transferred to a federal penal or correctional institution, provided the attorney general of the United States accepts such application and transfer.

History.

1963, ch. 107, § 1, p. 329.

CASE NOTES

Cited

VonEiselein v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 919 (10th Cir. 1965).

§ 20-248. Contract for care of transferred prisoner.

The state board of correction is hereby authorized to contract with the attorney general of the United States or such officer as the Congress may designate under the provisions of title 18, section 5003 of the United States Code, and acts supplementary and amendatory thereof, in each individual case for the care, custody, subsistence, education, treatment and training of any prisoner transferred under the provisions of this act. The contract shall provide for the reimbursement of the United States in full for all costs or other expenses to be paid from the appropriation for the operation of the state penitentiary. The state board of corrections shall affix to such contract a copy of the commitment or commitments under which the prisoner is held and the same along with the contract of transfer shall be sufficient authority for the United States to hold said prisoner on behalf of the state of Idaho.

History.

1963, ch. 107, § 2, p. 329.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” at the end of the first sentence refers to S.L. 1963, chapter 107, which is compiled as§§ 20-247 to 20-249.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 233, 392 P.2d 423 (1964); VonEiselein v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 919 (10th Cir. 1965).

§ 20-249. Transferred prisoner subject to terms of original sentence.

Any prisoner transferred under this act shall be subject to the terms of his original sentence or sentences as if he were serving the same within the confines of the Idaho state penitentiary. Nothing herein contained shall deprive such prisoner of his rights to parole or his rights to legal process in the courts of this state.

History.

1963, ch. 107, § 3, p. 329.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” near the beginning of the first sentence refers to S.L. 1963, chapter 107, which is compiled as§§ 20-247 to 20-249.

Effective Dates.

Section 4 of S.L. 1963, ch. 107 declared an emergency. Approved March 13, 1963.

CASE NOTES

Cited

VonEiselein v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 919 (10th Cir. 1965).

§ 20-250. Department of correction reporting requirements.

The department of correction shall report to the legislature by February 1 of each year on the amount of savings generated and on the prison population impact under the policy framework of this act for the purpose of tracking the progress toward meeting the impact estimates and goals of the act.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-250, as added by 2014, ch. 150, § 20, p. 414.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The terms “this act” and “the act” refer to S.L. 2014, chapter 150, which is compiled as§§ 19-2513, 19-2517, 19-2521, 19-2524, 19-2601, 19-2606, 20-209H, 20-210A, 20-216, 20-219, 20-221 to 20-224, 20-227, 20-228, 20-229A, 20-229B, 20-233, and 20-250.

Effective Dates.

Section 21 of S.L. 2014, ch. 150 provided that the enactment of this section by section 20 is effective January 1, 2016.

Chapter 3 INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION

Sec.

§ 20-301. Compacts with other states authorized.

The governor of this state is hereby authorized and directed to execute a compact on behalf of the state of Idaho with any of the United States legally joining therein in the form substantially as follows:

ARTICLE I PURPOSE

The compacting states to this interstate compact recognize that each state is responsible for the supervision of adult offenders in the community who are authorized pursuant to the bylaws and rules of this compact to travel across state lines both to and from each compacting state in such a manner as to track the location of offenders, transfer supervision authority in an orderly and efficient manner, and when necessary return offenders to the originating jurisdictions. The compacting states also recognize that congress, by enacting the crime control act, 4 U.S.C. section 112 (1965), has authorized and encouraged compacts for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime. It is the purpose of this compact and the interstate commission created hereunder, through means of joint and cooperative action among the compacting states: to provide the framework for the promotion of public safety and protect the rights of victims through the control and regulation of the interstate movement of offenders in the community; to provide for the effective tracking, supervision, and rehabilitation of these offenders by the sending and receiving states; and to equitably distribute the costs, benefits and obligations of the compact among the compacting states. In addition, this compact will: create an interstate commission which will establish uniform procedures to manage the movement between states of adults placed under community supervision and released to the community under the jurisdiction of courts, paroling authorities, corrections or other criminal justice agencies which will promulgate rules to achieve the purpose of this compact; ensure an opportunity for input and timely notice to victims and to jurisdictions where defined offenders are authorized to travel or to relocate across state lines; establish a system of uniform data collection, access to information on active cases by authorized criminal justice officials, and regular reporting of compact activities to heads of state councils, state executive, judicial, and legislative branches and criminal justice administrators; monitor compliance with rules governing interstate movement of offenders and initiate interventions to address and correct noncompliance; and coordinate training and education regarding regulations of interstate movement of offenders for officials involved in such activity. The compacting states recognize that there is no “right” of any offender to live in another state and that duly accredited officers of a sending state may at all times enter a receiving state and there apprehend and retake any offender under supervision subject to the provisions of this compact and bylaws and rules promulgated hereunder. It is the policy of the compacting states that the activities conducted by the interstate commission created herein are the formation of public policies and are therefore public business.

ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS

As used in this compact, unless the context clearly requires a different construction:

  1. “Adult” means both individuals legally classified as adults and juveniles treated as adults by court order, statute or operation of law.
  2. “Bylaws” means those bylaws established by the interstate commission for its governance, or for directing or controlling the interstate commission’s actions or conduct.
  3. “Compact administrator” means the individual in each compacting state appointed pursuant to the terms of this compact who is responsible for the administration and management of the state’s supervision and transfer of offenders subject to the terms of this compact, the rules adopted by the interstate commission and policies adopted by the state council under this compact.
  4. “Compacting state” means any state which has enacted the enabling legislation for this compact.
  5. “Commissioner” means the voting representative of each compacting state appointed pursuant to article III of this compact.
  6. “Interstate commission” means the interstate commission for adult offender supervision established by this compact.
  7. “Member” means the commissioner of a compacting state or designee, who shall be a person officially connected with the commissioner.
  8. “Noncompacting state” means any state which has not enacted the enabling legislation for this compact.
  9. “Offender” means an adult placed under, or subject to, supervision as the result of the commission of a criminal offense and released to the community under the jurisdiction of courts, paroling authorities, corrections, or other criminal justice agencies.
  10. “Person” means any individual, corporation, business enterprise, or other legal entity, either public or private.
  11. “Rules” means acts of the interstate commission, duly promulgated pursuant to article VIII of this compact, substantially affecting interested parties in addition to the interstate commission, which shall have the force and effect of law in the compacting states.
  12. “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia and any other territorial possessions of the United States.
  13. “State council” means the resident members of the state council for interstate adult offender supervision created by each state under article IV of this compact.

ARTICLE III THE COMPACT COMMISSION

  1. The compacting states hereby create the “Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision.” The interstate commission shall be a body corporate and joint agency of the compacting states. The interstate commission shall have all the responsibilities, powers and duties set forth herein, including the power to sue and be sued, and such additional powers as may be conferred upon it by subsequent action of the respective legislatures of the compacting states in accordance with the terms of this compact.
  2. The interstate commission shall consist of commissioners selected and appointed by resident members of a state council for interstate adult offender supervision for each state.
  3. In addition to the commissioners who are the voting representatives of the compacting states, the interstate commission shall include individuals who are not commissioners but who are members of interested organizations. Such noncommissioner members must include a member of the national organizations of governors, legislators, state chief justices, attorneys general and crime victims. All noncommissioner members of the interstate commission shall be ex officio (nonvoting) members. The interstate commission may provide in its bylaws for such additional, ex officio, nonvoting members as it deems necessary. (4) Each compacting state represented at any meeting of the interstate commission is entitled to one (1) vote. A majority of the compacting states shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, unless a larger quorum is required by the bylaws of the interstate commission.

(5) The interstate commission shall meet at least once each calendar year. The chairperson may call additional meetings and, upon the request of twenty-seven (27) or more compacting states, shall call additional meetings. Public notice shall be given of all meetings and meetings shall be open to the public.

(6) The interstate commission shall establish an executive committee which shall include commission officers, members and others as shall be determined by the bylaws. The executive committee shall have the power to act on behalf of the interstate commission during periods when the interstate commission is not in session, with the exception of rulemaking and/or amendment to the compact. The executive committee oversees the day-to-day activities managed by the executive director and interstate commission staff; administers enforcement and compliance with the provisions of the compact, its bylaws and as directed by the interstate commission; and performs other duties as directed by the commission or set forth in the bylaws.

ARTICLE IV THE STATE COUNCIL

  1. Each member state shall create a state council for interstate adult offender supervision which shall be responsible for the appointment of the commissioner who shall serve on the interstate commission from that state. Each state council shall appoint the compact administrator from that state as its commissioner to serve on the interstate commission in such capacity under or pursuant to applicable law of the member state. While each member state may determine the membership of its own state council, its membership must include at least one (1) representative from the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, victims groups and (the) compact administrator(s). Each compacting state retains the right to determine the qualifications of the compact administrator who shall be appointed by the state council or by the governor in consultation with the legislature and the judiciary.
  2. In addition to appointment of its commissioner to the interstate commission, each state council shall exercise oversight and advocacy concerning its participation in interstate commission activities and other duties as may be determined by each member state including, but not limited to, development of policy concerning operations and procedures of the compact within that state.

ARTICLE V POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION

The interstate commission shall have the following powers:

  1. To adopt a seal and suitable bylaws governing the management and operation of the interstate commission;
  2. To promulgate rules which shall have the force and effect of statutory law and shall be binding in the compacting states to the extent and in the manner provided in this compact;
  3. To oversee, supervise and coordinate the interstate movement of offenders subject to the terms of this compact and any bylaws adopted and rules promulgated by the commission;
  4. To enforce compliance with compact provisions, interstate commission rules, and bylaws, using all necessary and proper means including, but not limited to, the use of judicial process;
  5. To establish and maintain offices;
  6. To purchase and maintain insurance and bonds;
  7. To borrow, accept or contract for services of personnel including, but not limited to, members and their staffs;
  8. To establish and appoint committees and hire staff which it deems necessary for the carrying out of its functions including, but not limited to, an executive committee as required by article III which shall have the power to act on behalf of the interstate commission in carrying out its powers and duties hereunder;
  9. To elect or appoint such officers, attorneys, employees, agents, or consultants, and to fix their compensation, define their duties and determine their qualifications; and to establish the interstate commission’s personnel policies and programs relating to, among other things, conflicts of interest, rates of compensation and qualifications of personnel;
  10. To accept any and all donations and grants of money, equipment, supplies, materials and services, and to receive, utilize and dispose of same;
  11. To lease, purchase, accept contributions or donations of, or otherwise to own, hold, improve or use any property, real, personal or mixed;
  12. To sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, abandon or otherwise dispose of any property, real, personal or mixed;
  13. To establish a budget and make expenditures and levy dues as provided in article X of this compact;
  14. To sue and be sued;
  15. To provide for dispute resolution among compacting states;
  16. To perform such functions as may be necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of this compact;
  17. To report annually to the legislatures, governors, judiciary and state councils of the compacting states concerning the activities of the interstate commission during the preceding year. Such reports shall also include any recommendations that may have been adopted by the interstate commission;
  18. To coordinate education, training and public awareness regarding the interstate movement of offenders for officials involved in such activity;
  19. To establish uniform standards for the reporting, collecting and exchanging of data.

ARTICLE VI ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION

  1. The interstate commission shall, by a majority of the members, within twelve (12) months of the first interstate commission meeting, adopt bylaws to govern its conduct as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the compact, including, but not limited to:
    1. Establishing the fiscal year of the interstate commission;
    2. Establishing an executive committee and such other committees as may be necessary;
    3. Providing reasonable standards and procedures:
      1. For the establishment of committees; and
      2. Governing any general or specific delegation of any authority or function of the interstate commission; (d) Providing reasonable procedures for calling and conducting meetings of the interstate commission, and ensuring reasonable notice of each such meeting;
        1. Establishing standards and procedures for compliance and technical assistance in carrying out the compact.
  2. The interstate commission shall, by a majority of the members, elect from among its members a chairperson and a vice chairperson, each of whom shall have such authorities and duties as may be specified in the bylaws. The chairperson or, in the chairperson’s absence or disability, the vice chairperson, shall preside at all meetings of the interstate commission. The officers so elected shall serve without compensation or remuneration from the interstate commission; provided that, subject to the availability of budgeted funds, the officers shall be reimbursed for any actual and necessary costs and expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties and responsibilities as officers of the interstate commission.
  3. The interstate commission shall, through its executive committee, appoint or retain an executive director for such period, upon such terms and conditions and for such compensation as the interstate commission may deem appropriate. The executive director shall serve as secretary to the interstate commission, and hire and supervise such other staff as may be authorized by the interstate commission, but shall not be a member.
  4. The interstate commission shall maintain its corporate books and records in accordance with the bylaws.
  5. The members, officers, executive director and employees of the interstate commission shall be immune from suit and liability, either personally or in their official capacity, for any claim for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or other civil liability caused or arising out of any actual or alleged act, error or omission that occurred within the scope of interstate commission employment, duties or responsibilities; provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to protect any such person from suit and/or liability for any damage, loss, injury or liability caused by the intentional or willful and wanton misconduct of any such person.
  6. The interstate commission shall defend the commissioner of a compacting state, or the commissioner’s representatives or employees, or the interstate commission’s representatives or employees, in any civil action seeking to impose liability arising out of any actual or alleged act, error or omission that occurred within the scope of interstate commission employment, duties or responsibilities, or that the defendant had a reasonable basis for believing occurred within the scope of interstate commission employment, duties or responsibilities; provided that the actual or alleged act, error or omission did not result from intentional wrongdoing on the part of such person.
  7. The interstate commission shall indemnify and hold the commissioner of a compacting state, the appointed designee or employees, or the interstate commission’s representatives or employees, harmless in the amount of any settlement or judgment obtained against such persons arising out of any actual or alleged act, error or omission that occurred within the scope of interstate commission employment, duties or responsibilities, or that such persons had a reasonable basis for believing occurred within the scope of interstate commission employment, duties or responsibilities; provided that the actual or alleged act, error or omission did not result from gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing on the part of such person.

(e) Establishing the titles and responsibilities of the officers of the interstate commission;

(f) Providing reasonable standards and procedures for the establishment of the personnel policies and programs of the interstate commission. Notwithstanding any civil service or other similar laws of any compacting state, the bylaws shall exclusively govern the personnel policies and programs of the interstate commission;

(g) Providing a mechanism for winding up the operations of the interstate commission and the equitable return of any surplus funds that may exist upon the termination of the compact after the payment and/or reserving of all of its debts and obligations;

(h) Providing transition rules for “start up” administration of the compact;

ARTICLE VII ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION

  1. The interstate commission shall meet and take such actions as are consistent with the provisions of this compact.
  2. Except as otherwise provided in this compact and unless a greater percentage is required by the bylaws, in order to constitute an act of the interstate commission, such act shall have been taken at a meeting of the interstate commission and shall have received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.
  3. Each member of the interstate commission shall have the right and power to cast a vote to which that compacting state is entitled and to participate in the business and affairs of the interstate commission. A member shall vote in person on behalf of the state and shall not delegate a vote to another member state. However, a state council shall appoint another authorized representative, in the absence of the commissioner from that state, to cast a vote on behalf of the member state at a specified meeting. The bylaws may provide for members’ participation in meetings by telephone or other means of telecommunication or electronic communication. Any voting conducted by telephone, or other means of telecommunication or electronic communication shall be subject to the same quorum requirements of meetings where members are present in person.
  4. The interstate commission shall meet at least once during each calendar year. The chairperson of the interstate commission may call additional meetings at any time and, upon the request of a majority of the members, shall call additional meetings.
  5. The interstate commission shall establish conditions and procedures under which the interstate commission shall make its information and official records available to the public for inspection or copying. The interstate commission may exempt from disclosure any information or official records to the extent they would adversely affect personal privacy rights or proprietary interests. In promulgating such rules, the interstate commission may make available to law enforcement agencies records and information otherwise exempt from disclosure, and may enter into agreements with law enforcement agencies to receive or exchange information or records subject to nondisclosure and confidentiality provisions.
  6. Public notice shall be given of all meetings and all meetings shall be open to the public, except as set forth in the rules or as otherwise provided in the compact. The interstate commission shall promulgate rules consistent with the principles contained in the government in sunshine act, 5 U.S.C. section 552(b), as may be amended. The interstate commission and any of its committees may close a meeting to the public where it determines by two-thirds (2/3) vote that an open meeting would be likely to:
    1. Relate solely to the interstate commission’s internal personnel practices and procedures;
    2. Disclose matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute;
    3. Disclose trade secrets or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential;
    4. Involve accusing any person of a crime, or formally censuring any person;
    5. Disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
    6. Disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes;
    7. Disclose information contained in or related to examination, operating or condition reports prepared by, or on behalf of or for the use of, the interstate commission with respect to a regulated entity for the purpose of regulation or supervision of such entity;
    8. Disclose information, the premature disclosure of which would significantly endanger the life of a person or the stability of a regulated entity;
    9. Specifically relate to the interstate commission’s issuance of a subpoena, or its participation in a civil action or proceeding.
  7. The interstate commission shall keep minutes which shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed in any meeting and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote (reflected in the vote of each member on the question). All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in such minutes.
  8. The interstate commission shall collect standardized data concerning the interstate movement of offenders as directed through its bylaws and rules which shall specify the data to be collected, the means of collection and data exchange and reporting requirements.

For every meeting closed pursuant to this provision, the interstate commission’s chief legal officer shall publicly certify that, in the officer’s opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public, and shall reference each relevant exemptive provision.

ARTICLE VIII RULEMAKING FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION

  1. The interstate commission shall promulgate rules in order to effectively and efficiently achieve the purposes of the compact including transition rules governing administration of the compact during the period in which it is being considered and enacted by the states.
  2. Rulemaking shall occur pursuant to the criteria set forth in this article and the bylaws and rules adopted pursuant thereto. Such rulemaking shall substantially conform to the principles of the federal administrative procedure act, 5 U.S.C.S. section 551 et seq., and the federal advisory committee act, 5 U.S.C.S. app. 2, section 1 et seq., as may be amended (hereinafter “APA”).
  3. All rules and amendments shall become binding as of the date specified in each rule or amendment.
  4. If a majority of the legislatures of the compacting states rejects a rule, by enactment of a statute or resolution in the same manner used to adopt the compact, then such rule shall have no further force and effect in any compacting state.
  5. When promulgating a rule, the interstate commission shall:
    1. Publish the proposed rule stating with particularity the text of the rule which is proposed and the reason for the proposed rule;
    2. Allow persons to submit written data, facts, opinions and arguments, which information shall be publicly available;
    3. Provide an opportunity for an informal hearing; and
    4. Promulgate a final rule and its effective date, if appropriate, based on the rulemaking record.
  6. Not later than sixty (60) days after a rule is promulgated, any interested person may file a petition in the United States district court for the District of Columbia or in the federal district court where the interstate commission’s principal office is located for judicial review of such rule. If the court finds that the interstate commission’s action is not supported by substantial evidence, as defined in the APA, in the rulemaking record, the court shall hold the rule unlawful and set it aside.
  7. Subjects to be addressed within twelve (12) months after the first meeting must at a minimum include:
    1. Notice to victims and opportunity to be heard;
    2. Offender registration and compliance;
    3. Violations/returns;
    4. Transfer procedures and forms;
    5. Eligibility for transfer;
    6. Collection of restitution and fees from offenders;
    7. Data collection and reporting;
    8. The level of supervision to be provided by the receiving state;
    9. Transition rules governing the operation of the compact and the interstate commission during all or part of the period between the effective date of the compact and the date on which the last eligible state adopts the compact.[;]
    10. Mediation, arbitration and dispute resolution.
  8. The existing rules governing the operation of the previous compact superseded by this act shall be null and void twelve (12) months after the first meeting of the interstate commission created hereunder.
  9. Upon determination by the interstate commission that an emergency exists, it may promulgate an emergency rule which shall become effective immediately upon adoption; provided that the usual rulemaking procedures provided hereunder shall be retroactively applied to said rule as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than ninety (90) days after the effective date of the rule.

ARTICLE IX OVERSIGHT, ENFORCEMENT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION

  1. The interstate commission shall oversee the interstate movement of adult offenders in the compacting states and shall monitor such activities being administered in noncompacting states which may significantly affect compacting states.
  2. The courts and executive agencies in each compacting state shall enforce this compact and shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to effectuate the compact’s purposes and intent. In any judicial or administrative proceeding in a compacting state pertaining to the subject matter of this compact which may affect the powers, responsibilities or actions of the interstate commission, the interstate commission shall be entitled to receive all service of process in any such proceeding, and shall have standing to intervene in the proceeding for all purposes.
  3. The compacting states shall report to the interstate commission on issues or activities of concern to them, and cooperate with and support the interstate commission in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
  4. The interstate commission shall attempt to resolve any disputes or other issues which are subject to the compact and which may arise among compacting states and noncompacting states.
  5. The interstate commission shall enact a bylaw or promulgate a rule providing for both mediation and binding dispute resolution for disputes among the compacting states.
  6. The interstate commission, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, shall enforce the provisions of this compact using any or all means set forth in article XII, of this compact.

ARTICLE X FINANCE

  1. The interstate commission shall pay or provide for the payment of the reasonable expenses of its establishment, organization and ongoing activities.
  2. The interstate commission shall levy on and collect an annual assessment from each compacting state to cover the cost of the internal operations and activities of the interstate commission and its staff which must be in a total amount sufficient to cover the interstate commission’s annual budget as approved each year. The aggregate annual assessment amount shall be allocated based upon a formula to be determined by the interstate commission, taking into consideration the population of the state and the volume of interstate movement of offenders in each compacting state and shall promulgate a rule binding upon all compacting states which governs said assessment.
  3. The interstate commission shall not incur any obligations of any kind prior to securing the funds adequate to meet the same, nor shall the interstate commission pledge the credit of any of the compacting states, except by and with the authority of the compacting state.
  4. The interstate commission shall keep accurate accounts of all receipts and disbursements. The receipts and disbursements of the interstate commission shall be subject to the audit and accounting procedures established under its bylaws. However, all receipts and disbursements of funds handled by the interstate commission shall be audited yearly by a certified or licensed public accountant and the report of the audit shall be included in and become part of the annual report of the interstate commission.

ARTICLE XI COMPACTING STATES, EFFECTIVE DATE AND AMENDMENT

  1. Any state, as defined in article II of this compact, is eligible to become a compacting state.
  2. The compact shall become effective and binding upon legislative enactment of the compact into law by no less than thirty-five (35) of the states. The initial effective date shall be the later of July 1, 2001, or upon enactment into law by the thirty-fifth jurisdiction. Thereafter it shall become effective and binding, as to any other compacting state, upon enactment of the compact into law by that state. The governors of nonmember states or their designees will be invited to participate in interstate commission activities on a nonvoting basis prior to adoption of the compact by all states and territories of the United States.
  3. Amendments to the compact may be proposed by the interstate commission for enactment by the compacting states. No amendment shall become effective and binding upon the interstate commission and the compacting states unless and until it is enacted into law by unanimous consent of the compacting states.

ARTICLE XII WITHDRAWAL, DEFAULT, TERMINATION AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT

  1. Once effective, the compact shall continue in force and remain binding upon each and every compacting state; provided, that a compacting state may withdraw from the compact (“withdrawing state”) by enacting a statute specifically repealing the statute which enacted the compact into law. The effective date of withdrawal is the effective date of the repeal.
  2. The withdrawing state shall immediately notify the chairperson of the interstate commission in writing upon the introduction of legislation repealing this compact in the withdrawing state. The interstate commission shall notify the other compacting states of the withdrawing state’s intent to withdraw within sixty (60) days of its receipt thereof.
  3. The withdrawing state is responsible for all assessments, obligations and liabilities incurred through the effective date of withdrawal, including any obligations the performance of which extend beyond the effective date of withdrawal.
  4. Reinstatement following withdrawal of any compacting state shall occur upon the withdrawing state’s reenactment of the compact or upon such later date as determined by the interstate commission.
  5. If the interstate commission determines that any compacting state has at any time defaulted (“defaulting state”) in the performance of any of its obligations or responsibilities under this compact, the bylaws or any duly promulgated rules, the interstate commission may impose any or all of the following penalties:
    1. Fines, fees and costs in such amounts as are deemed to be reasonable as fixed by the interstate commission;
    2. Remedial training and technical assistance as directed by the interstate commission;
    3. Suspension and termination of membership in the compact. Suspension shall be imposed only after all other reasonable means of securing compliance under the bylaws and rules have been exhausted. Immediate notice of suspension shall be given by the interstate commission to the governor, the chief justice or chief judicial officer of the state, the majority and minority leaders of the defaulting state’s legislature, and the state council.
  6. The grounds for default include, but are not limited to, failure of a compacting state to perform such obligations or responsibilities imposed upon it by this compact, interstate commission bylaws, or duly promulgated rules. The interstate commission shall immediately notify the defaulting state in writing of the penalty imposed by the interstate commission on the defaulting state pending a cure of the default. The interstate commission shall stipulate the conditions and the time period within which the defaulting state must cure its default. If the defaulting state fails to cure the default within the time period specified by the interstate commission, in addition to any other penalties imposed herein, the defaulting state may be terminated from the compact upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the compacting states and all rights, privileges and benefits conferred by this compact shall be terminated from the effective date of suspension.
  7. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of termination of a defaulting state, the interstate commission shall notify the governor, the chief justice or chief judicial officer and the majority and minority leaders of the defaulting state’s legislature and the state council of such termination.
  8. The defaulting state is responsible for all assessments, obligations and liabilities incurred through the effective date of termination including any obligations the performance of which extends beyond the effective date of termination.
  9. The interstate commission shall not bear any costs relating to the defaulting state unless otherwise mutually agreed upon between the interstate commission and the defaulting state.
  10. Reinstatement following termination of any compacting state requires both a reenactment of the compact by the defaulting state and the approval of the interstate commission pursuant to the rules.
  11. The interstate commission may, by majority vote of the members, initiate legal action in the United States district court for the District of Columbia or, at the discretion of the interstate commission, in the federal district where the interstate commission has its offices to enforce compliance with the provisions of the compact, its duly promulgated rules and bylaws, against any compacting state in default. In the event judicial enforcement is necessary, the prevailing party shall be awarded all costs of such litigation including reasonable attorney’s fees.
  12. The compact dissolves effective upon the date of the withdrawal or default of the compacting state which reduces membership in the compact to one (1) compacting state. Upon the dissolution of this compact, the compact becomes null and void and shall be of no further force or effect, and the business and affairs of the interstate commission shall be wound up and any surplus funds shall be distributed in accordance with the bylaws.

ARTICLE XIII SEVERABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION

  1. The provisions of this compact shall be severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision is deemed unenforceable, the remaining provisions of the compact shall be enforceable.
  2. The provisions of this compact shall be liberally constructed to effectuate its purposes.

ARTICLE XIV BINDING EFFECT OF COMPACT AND OTHER LAWS

  1. Nothing herein prevents the enforcement of any other law of a compacting state that is not inconsistent with this compact.
  2. All compacting states’ laws conflicting with this compact are superseded to the extent of the conflict.
  3. All lawful actions of the interstate commission, including all rules and bylaws promulgated by the interstate commission, are binding upon the compacting states.
  4. All agreements between the interstate commission and the compacting states are binding in accordance with their terms.
  5. Upon the request of a party to a conflict over meaning or interpretation of interstate commission actions, and upon a majority vote of the compacting states, the interstate commission may issue advisory opinions regarding such meaning or interpretation.
  6. In the event any provision of this compact exceeds the constitutional limits imposed on the legislature of any compacting state, the obligations, duties, powers or jurisdiction sought to be conferred by such provision upon the interstate commission shall be ineffective and such obligations, duties, powers or jurisdiction shall remain in the compacting state and shall be exercised by the agency thereof to which such obligations, duties, powers or jurisdiction are delegated by law in effect at the time this compact becomes effective. History.

I.C.,§ 20-301, as added by 2000, ch. 413, § 2, p. 1307.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-301, which comprised 1941, ch. 148, § 1, p. 300; am. 1951, ch. 101, § 1, p. 226, was repealed by S.L. 2000, ch. 413, § 1, effective upon the enactment of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision into law by thirty-five states or July 1, 2001, whichever is later. On June 19, 2002, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to sign the compact, making the compact effective that date in Idaho.

Compiler’s Notes.

The bracketed insertion at the end of subsection (7)(i) in Article VIII was added by the compiler to supply the correct punctuation.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 20-302. Short title.

This act may be cited as the “Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.”

History.

I.C.,§ 20-302, as added by 2000, ch. 413, § 3, p. 1307.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-301, which comprised 1941, ch. 148, § 1, p. 300; am. 1951, ch. 101, § 1, p. 226, was repealed by S.L. 2000, ch. 413, § 1, effective upon the enactment of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision into law by thirty-five states or July 1, 2001, whichever is later. See Compiler’s Notes.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” at the beginning of this section refers to S.L. 2000, chapter 413, which is codified as§§ 20-301 and 20-302. The reference should be to “this chapter,” being chapter 3, title 20, Idaho Code.

Section 4 of S.L. 2000, ch. 413, provides: “This act shall become effective upon the enactment of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision into law by thirty-five states or July 1, 2001, whichever is later”. On June 19, 2002, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to sign the compact, making the compact effective that date in Idaho.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Chapter 4 IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES ACT

Sec.

§ 20-401. Short title.

This act shall be known and cited as the “Idaho Correctional Industries Act.”

History.

I.C.,§ 20-401, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 2, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former Chapter 4, which comprised S.L. 1933, ch. 216, §§ 1-10; 1941, ch. 120, § 1; 1943, ch. 67, §§ 1-3; 1951, ch. 84, § 1; 1972, ch. 236, § 1, was repealed by S.L. 1974, ch. 48, § 1.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, inserted “Idaho” in the section.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” at the beginning of the section refers to S.L. 1974, chapter 48, § 2, which is codified as§§ 20-401 to 20-419. The reference should be to “this chapter,” being chapter 4, title 20, Idaho Code.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-402. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

  1. “Agricultural employer” is as defined in section 44-1601, Idaho Code.
  2. “Agricultural products” is as defined in section 22-2602, Idaho Code.
  3. “Board” means the state board of correction.
  4. “Correctional institution products” means all services and labor provided, goods, wares and merchandise manufactured or produced wholly or in part, except “hobby-craft” articles, by trainees in the Idaho correctional industries training program.
  5. “Enterprise” means an operation, including services and labor, or a group of closely related operations.
  6. “Trainee” means an inmate enrolled in an Idaho correctional industries training program.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-402, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 3, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-402 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, rewrote the section, adding the introductory paragraph and subsections (1) to (3), (5), and (6).

§ 20-403. Governing body created — Members.

There is hereby created the governing body which shall consist of the members of the board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-403, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 1, p. 220.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-403 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

§ 20-404. Authority and duties vested in board.

The authority and duties established in this chapter are vested in the board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-404, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 2, p. 220; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 4, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-404 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, substituted “duties established in this chapter” for “duties herein.”

§ 20-405. Governing body — Meetings — Quorum — Vote to transact business.

The board of correction shall be the governing body of correctional industries. The board shall meet at such times and places as may be necessary for the conduct of its business. Meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or a majority of the board, but in no event shall they meet less than quarterly. A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and no order of the board shall be valid unless concurred in by at least two (2) of its members.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-405, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 3, p. 220.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-405 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

§ 20-406. Compensation and expenses.

All members shall also receive their actual and necessary expenses of travel and accommodations incurred in attending meetings of the board, attending other functions related to correctional industries, and in making investigations, either as a board or individually as members of the board at the request of the chairman.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-406, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 4, p. 220; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 5, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-406 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, inserted a comma following “attending meetings of the board” near the middle of the section.

§ 20-407. Jurisdiction of board.

  1. The jurisdiction of the board of correction may extend to all productive enterprises in the prison facilities.
  2. At each regular meeting of the board, the chairman shall report on the condition of each enterprise.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-407, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 5, p. 220; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 6, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-407 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, designated the first and former last paragraphs as subsections (1) and (2), and deleted the former second paragraph, which read: “As used in this chapter, ‘an enterprise’ means an operation, including services and labor, or group of closely related operations within the institution.” See§ 20-402(5).

§ 20-408. Duties of board.

The board of correction shall:

  1. Recommend productive enterprises in such volume and of such kinds as to eliminate unnecessary idleness among the inmates and to provide diversified work activities that will serve as a means of vocational education and rehabilitation, as well as financial support;
  2. Determine the advisability and suitability of establishing, expanding, diminishing, or discontinuing any enterprise;
  3. Hold hearings and make rules for conducting such hearings. The board may, in its discretion, hold public hearings on any subject within its jurisdiction;
  4. Conduct programs of research, education and publicity for correctional industries products;
  5. Secure new markets for correctional industries products;
  6. Enter into such contracts and agreements as may be necessary or advisable pursuant to the provisions of this chapter;
  7. Appoint and employ all necessary officers, agents and other personnel, including any experts in any correctional industries enterprise pursuit, prescribe their duties and fix their compensation;
  8. Cooperate with any local, state or national organization or agency and to enter into contracts and agreements with such agencies for carrying on and promoting the purposes of this chapter;
  9. Adopt, rescind, modify and amend all necessary and proper orders, rules and regulations for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties as described in this section; and
  10. Keep or cause to be kept in accordance with accepted standards of good accounting practice, accurate records of all collections, receipts, deposits, withdrawals, disbursements, paid-outs, moneys, and other financial transactions made and done pursuant to this chapter. The books, records and accounts shall be open to inspection and audit by the legislative council and the public at all times.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-408, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 6, p. 220; am. 1993, ch. 327, § 5, p. 1186; am. 2010, ch. 252, § 1, p. 642; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 7, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Legislative council,§ 67-427 et seq.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-408 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 252, deleted the second sentence in subsection (j), which read: “Such records, books and accounts shall be audited subject to lawful, sound procedures and methods of accounting at least annually and a copy of such audit shall be delivered within thirty (30) days after completion thereof to the board of correction.” The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, redesignated subsections (a) to (j) as subsections (1) to (10); in subsection (1), deleted “in the penal institutions under the jurisdiction of the department of sections” following “Recommend productive enterprises” at the beginning and substituted “this chapter” for “this act” at the end of subsections (6) and (8), and at the end of the first sentence in subsection (10).

§ 20-409. Payment of expenses of board.

The expenses of the board shall be paid from the correctional industries betterment account.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-409, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 7, p. 220; 1983, ch. 223, § 2, p. 618.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Correctional industries betterment account,§ 20-415.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-409 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

§ 20-410. Work of inmates assigned to do conservation work. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2020, ch. 83, § 8, effective July 1, 2020.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-410, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 8, p. 220.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-410 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

§ 20-411. Insurance of products, materials and equipment — Payment of cost of insurance.

The board may, in its discretion, insure any or all products produced at any institution under the jurisdiction of the board of correction, whether the products are finished or unfinished, the materials from which such products are made or to be made, and the equipment necessary for the production thereof, against any and all risks of loss, wherever such products, materials or equipment are located, while in the possession of the institution and while in transit thereto or therefrom, or in storage, in such amounts as the board deems proper. The cost of such insurance shall be paid from the correctional industries betterment account.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-411, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 9, p. 220; 1983, ch. 223, § 3, p. 618.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Correctional industries betterment account,§ 20-415.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-411 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

§ 20-412. Training stipend — Amount — Crediting trainees’ inmate accounts — Civil rights — Trainees not employees.

  1. Each trainee engaged in an Idaho correctional industries training program authorized by this chapter may receive for his participation such training stipend as the board shall determine, to be paid out of any funds available in the correctional industries betterment account. Such training stipend, if any, shall be in accordance with a graduated schedule based on knowledge, ability, and skills required for its performance. The training stipend shall be credited to a trainee’s inmate account pursuant to section 20-209H, Idaho Code, and as otherwise authorized by law or by rule adopted by the board, and paid from the correctional industries betterment account.
  2. Nothing in this section or in this chapter is intended to restore, in whole or in part, the civil rights of any trainee. No trainee who receives a training stipend under this chapter shall be considered to be an employee of or employed by the state, the board of correction, or any private agricultural employer that is a party to a contract with Idaho correctional industries pursuant to section 20-413A, Idaho Code. No trainee engaged in an Idaho correctional industries training program as authorized by this chapter shall be entitled to worker’s compensation benefits or unemployment compensation under this chapter or chapter 13, title 72, Idaho Code, whether on behalf of himself or any other person, except as may be required for training programs certified by the prison industry enhancement certification program.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-412, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 10, p. 220; 1983, ch. 223, § 4, p. 618; am. 2015, ch. 125, § 1, p. 318; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 9, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Correctional industries betterment account,§ 20-415.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-412 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-401.

Amendments.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 125, substituted “as authorized by this chapter” for “in the institution under the jurisdiction of the board of correction as a part of the correctional industries work program” in the first sentence in the first paragraph; and rewrote the second paragraph, which formerly read: “Nothing in this section or in this act is intended to restore, in whole or in part, the civil rights of any inmate. No inmate compensated under this act shall be considered an employee of the state or the board of correction, nor shall any inmate come within any of the provisions of the workmen’s compensation laws, or be entitled to any benefits thereunder whether on behalf of himself or any other person”. The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, rewrote the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.

CASE NOTES

An inmate who is performing work at a state correctional facility is not working under any contract of hire, either express or implied by law, and, thus, is not an employee of the state for worker’s compensation purposes. Crawford v. Department of Cor., 133 Idaho 633, 991 P.2d 358 (1999).

§ 20-413. Goods and services for government, nonprofit organizations, and public use — Contracts.

The board is hereby authorized and empowered to cause the inmates in the state prison to be employed in the rendering of such services and in the production and manufacture of such articles, materials, and supplies as are now or may hereafter be needed by any public institution or agency of the state or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, districts, municipalities, schools, nonprofit organizations, and other public use. The board may cause the inmates to be employed in rendering such services or producing and manufacturing such articles, materials, and supplies as are now or may hereafter be needed for use by the federal government for any department, agency or corporation thereof. The board may contract to sell products manufactured by correctional industries to retail or wholesale establishments within the state. The board or its designated agent may enter into contracts for the purposes of this article.

The board may contract with other state and federal penal institutions and with out-of-state governmental entities for the production, manufacture, exchange, sale, or purchase of goods, wares and merchandise manufactured or produced wholly or in part by inmates of the Idaho state penitentiary or of any state or federal penal institution.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-413, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1978, ch. 147, § 1, p. 329; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 11, p. 220; am. 1981, ch. 155, § 1, p. 266.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Correctional industries may sell its products to retail or wholesale establishments within the state only where it is intended that the products will eventually be offered for resale to the general public; thus, correctional industries products may not be sold to retail or wholesale establishments that: (1) are not in the business of selling such products, or (2) do not intend to sell the correctional industries products.OAG 01-1.

§ 20-413A. Contracts for agricultural training programs.

  1. The board may contract with private agricultural employers for the use of trainees in the production, harvesting, and processing of agricultural products. The use of trainees may not result in the displacement of employed workers within the local region in which the training program is operated.
  2. The board shall establish by rule factors to be considered by the board prior to entering into such contract including, but not limited to, ensuring that employed workers are not displaced, inmate safety and any security risks and needs. All moneys derived from such contracts shall be deposited into the correctional industries betterment account established in section 20-415, Idaho Code.
  3. Trainees shall receive a stipend for their participation pursuant to section 20-412, Idaho Code. The board shall establish by rule factors to be considered in dispersing trainee earnings. Deductions shall be made for:
    1. Reducing or offsetting costs of incarceration from the general fund;
    2. Satisfying court-ordered restitution, fines and other legal judgments;
    3. Providing resources for successful reentry by inmates;
    4. Reentry savings; and
    5. Any other deduction otherwise authorized by law or adopted by rule of the board.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-413A, as added by 2014, ch. 282, § 1, p. 716; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 10, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

General fund,§ 67-1205.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, rewrote subsection (1), which formerly read: “(1) The board may contract with private agricultural employers as that term is defined in section 44-1601, Idaho Code, for the use of inmate labor in the production, harvesting and processing of perishable agricultural food products as that term is defined in section 6-2002, Idaho Code. The use of inmate labor may not result in the displacement of employed workers within the local region in which the agricultural work is being performed”; and, in subsection (3), rewrote the introductory paragraph, which formerly read: “Inmates shall be compensated for their services pursuant to section 20-412, Idaho Code. The board shall establish by rule factors to be considered in dispersing inmate earnings. Deductions shall be made for”, added present paragraph (d), and rewrote former paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).

§ 20-414. Disposition of products.

All articles, materials, and supplies produced or manufactured under the provisions of this chapter shall be solely and exclusively for public or nonprofit organization use and no article, material, or supplies produced or manufactured under the provisions of this chapter shall ever be sold, supplied, furnished, and exchanged, or given away for any private use or profit, except as allowed by section 20-413, Idaho Code. However, by-products and surpluses of agricultural and animal husbandry enterprises may be sold to private persons, at private sale, under rules prescribed by the board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-414, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 12, p. 220; am. 2020, ch. 83, § 11, p. 217.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Amendments.

The 2020 amendment, by ch. 83, in the first sentence, substituted “this chapter” for “this act” near the beginning and substituted “section 20-413, Idaho Code” for “the preceding section” at the end.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Resale.

Correctional industries may sell its products to retail or wholesale establishments within the state only where it is intended that the products will eventually be offered for resale to the general public; thus, correctional industries products may not be sold to retail or wholesale establishments that: (1) are not in the business of selling such products, or (2) do not intend to sell the correctional industries products.OAG 01-1.

§ 20-415. Correctional industries betterment account — Transfer of funds.

Funds held by the board of correction on June 30, 1983, in depositories, shall be transferred therefrom by the board of correction, and deposited on July 1, 1983, with the treasurer of the state of Idaho in the correctional industries betterment account which is hereby created in the agency asset fund. All state departments, agencies and offices affected by such transfer are authorized and directed to enter such transfer on their books, records and accounts.

Pending use, surplus moneys in the account shall be invested by the state treasurer in the same manner as provided under section 67-1210, Idaho Code, with respect to other surplus or idle moneys in the state treasury. Interest earned on the investments shall be returned to the account.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-415, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 13, p. 220; 1983, ch. 223, § 5, p. 618.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

State treasurer,§ 67-1201 et seq.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Control of Fund.

The transfer of the prison industries betterment fund from the aegis of the state auditor to the separate and exclusive control of the correctional industries commission is a constitutionally impermissible violation of Idaho Const., Art. IV, § 1.OAG 83-4.

§ 20-415A. Transfer of equipment. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 20-415A, as added by 1979, ch. 153, § 1, p. 468; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 14, p. 220, was repealed by S.L. 1983, ch. 223, § 6.

§ 20-416. Deposit and disposition of funds and receipts.

  1. All funds transferred under the provisions of this act and moneys received for sale of goods or services under the provisions of this chapter shall be deposited in the correctional industries betterment account. The board may adopt, rescind, modify and amend regulations not inconsistent with this act and the laws of the state of Idaho related to the deposit or disposition of funds in the correctional industries betterment account. All moneys received under the provisions of this chapter shall be deposited in the account and made available for defraying expenses or repaying indebtedness of the board in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
  2. All salaries, costs and expenses incurred by the board in performing its duties and exercise of power under this chapter shall be paid out of the correctional industries betterment account.
  3. Subject to the provisions of this act pertaining to annual audit and established accounting procedures, the correctional industries betterment account is exempted from powers and duties of the state purchasing agent, as enumerated in chapter 16, title 67, Idaho Code.
  4. Surplus moneys in the correctional industries betterment account may be expended by the board for the use and benefit of vocational training and educational programs.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-416, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 15, p. 220; 1983, ch. 223, § 7, p. 618.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Correctional industries betterment fund,§ 20-415.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” in subsections (1), (3), and (4) refers to S.L. 1974, chapter 48, § 2, which is codified as§§ 20-401 to 20-419. The reference should be to “this chapter,” being chapter 4, title 20, Idaho Code.

§ 20-417. Marking products.

Each and every article manufactured under the provisions of this act shall have plainly marked or stamped thereon the words “Idaho Correctional Industries.”

History.

I.C.,§ 20-417, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” refers to S.L. 1974, chapter 48, § 2, which is codified as§§ 20-401 to 20-419. The reference should be to “this chapter,” being chapter 4, title 20, Idaho Code.

§ 20-418. Determination of prices.

The board shall from time to time determine the price at which such services, articles, materials, and supplies shall be sold.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-418, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; am. 1980, ch. 101, § 16, p. 220.

§ 20-419. Account as continuing appropriation — Nonreversion.

All moneys transferred to or hereafter placed in the correctional industries betterment account are hereby perpetually appropriated for the use and purposes specified in this chapter. The correctional industries betterment account or any surplus funds in said account shall not revert to the state general account.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-419, as added by 1974, ch. 48, § 2, p. 1096; 1983, ch. 223, § 8, p. 618.

Chapter 5 JUVENILE CORRECTIONS ACT

Sec.

§ 20-501. Legislative intent.

It is the policy of the state of Idaho that the juvenile corrections system will be based on the following principles: accountability; community protection; and competency development. Where a juvenile has been found to be within the purview of the juvenile corrections act, the court shall impose a sentence that will protect the community, hold the juvenile offender accountable for his actions, and assist the juvenile offender in developing skills to become a contributing member of a diverse community. It is the further policy of the state of Idaho that the parents or other legal guardians of the juvenile offender participate in the accomplishment of these goals through participation in counseling and treatment designed to develop positive parenting skills and an understanding of the family’s role in the juvenile offender’s behavior. It is the further intent of the legislature that the parents of the juvenile offender be held accountable, where appropriate, through monetary reimbursement for supervision and confinement of the juvenile offender, and restitution to victims of the juvenile offender’s delinquent acts. In enacting this legislation, the legislature finds that the juvenile corrections system should encompass the following aspects: day treatment, community programs, observation and assessment programs, probation services, secure facilities, after-care and assistance to counties for juvenile offenders not committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections.

The following is a brief description of what the legislature intends to become the components of Idaho’s juvenile corrections system:

Probation. Probation officers would have twenty-four (24) hour on call responsibility for juvenile offenders and would monitor their activities on a continual basis. Probation officers would be responsible for assisting juvenile offenders and their families in accessing counseling or treatment resources, close supervision of juvenile offenders’ activities, supervision of restitution and coordination of other services provided to juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders ordered into the custody of the department of juvenile corrections would be monitored by a county probation officer.

Day treatment. Day treatment programs would be time limited nonresidential treatment and educational programs. Included in these programs would be trackers who would provide intensive supervision of juvenile offenders through daily contact and by counseling juvenile offenders regarding employment, education, courts, family and life skills. Nonresidential alcohol and drug programs would provide outpatient assessment and counseling for juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems.

Community programs. It is intended that community programs would exist throughout the state to provide twenty-four (24) hour residential supervision and treatment options to juvenile offenders in close proximity to their families and their community. It is intended that these programs would strengthen the juvenile offender’s relationship with family, engender a commitment to school and employment, promote the development of competency and life skills and help juvenile offenders generalize appropriate behavior into their environment. Observation and assessment. Regional observation and assessment centers would be provided, either directly or on a contract basis, to conduct observation and assessment of the juvenile offender in a short-term residential experience. It is intended that these programs would maintain standardized home and daily routines with intensive daily programming.

Secure facilities. Secure facilities would provide secure confinement, discipline, education and treatment of the most seriously delinquent juvenile offenders. Programs at the secure facilities would be designed to help juvenile offenders recognize accountability for delinquent behavior by confronting and eliminating delinquent norms, criminal thinking and antisocial behavior and making restitution to victims through community service or other restitution programs.

It is the further intent of the legislature that the primary purpose of this act is to provide a continuum of programs which emphasize the juvenile offender’s accountability for his actions while assisting him in the development of skills necessary to function effectively and positively in the community in a manner consistent with public safety. These services and programs will individualize treatment and control of the juvenile offender for the benefit of the juvenile offender and the protection of society. It is legislative intent that the department of juvenile corrections be operated within the framework of the following principles to accomplish this mission:

  1. Provide humane, disciplined confinement to a juvenile offender who presents a danger to the community.
  2. Strengthen opportunities for the juvenile offender’s development of competency and life skills by expanding the juvenile offender’s access to applicable programs and community resources.
  3. Hold juvenile offenders accountable for their delinquent behavior through such means as victim restitution, community service programs and the sharing of correctional costs.
  4. Invoke the participation of the juvenile offender’s parent or legal guardian in assisting the juvenile offender to recognize and accept responsibility for his delinquent or other antisocial behavior and hold the parent accountable, where appropriate, through the payment of detention costs and restitution to victims and through attendance at programs for the development of positive parenting skills designed to promote a functional relationship between the juvenile offender and his family.
  5. Develop efficient and effective juvenile correctional programs within the framework of professional correctional standards, legislative intent and available resources.
  6. Provide for a diversity of innovative and effective programs through research on delinquent behavior and the continuous evaluation of correctional programs.
  7. Assist counties in developing meaningful programs for juvenile offenders who have come into the juvenile corrections system but who have not been committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections.
  8. Provide programs to increase public awareness of the mission of the juvenile corrections system and encourage public participation in developing an effective juvenile corrections system designed to aid in reducing juvenile crime in this state.
  9. Develop and maintain a statewide juvenile offender information system.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 1, p. 876; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 2, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 1, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 2, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 1, p. 39; am. 2012, ch. 257, § 5, p. 709.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Idaho Juvenile Rules, see Volume 2 of the Idaho Court Rules.

Prior Laws.

Former§§ 20-501 to 20-505 were repealed as follows:

§ 20-501, which comprised I.C.,§ 20-501, as added by 1980, ch. 216, § 2, p. 488; am. 1990, ch. 96, § 1, p. 201 was repealed by S.L. 1994, ch. 37, § 1, effective July 1, 1994.

§ 20-502, which comprised I.C.,§ 20-502, as added by 1980, ch. 216, § 3, p. 488; am. 1990, ch. 97, § 1, p. 202 was repealed by S.L. 1994, ch. 37, § 1, effective July 1, 1994.

§ 20-503, which comprised 1905, p. 33, § 3; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 8517; C.S., § 9412; I.C.A.,§ 20-503; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 9, p. 28, was repealed by S.L. 1984, ch. 93, § 1.

§ 20-504, which comprised 1905, p. 33, § 4; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 8518; C.S., § 9413; I.C.A.,§ 20-504; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 10, p. 28 was repealed by S.L. 1994, ch. 37, § 1, effective July 1, 1994.

§ 20-505, which comprised 1905, p. 33, § 5; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 8519; C.S., § 9414; I.C.A.,§ 20-505 was repealed by S.L. 1994, ch. 37, § 1, effective July 1, 1994.

Another former§ 20-501, which comprised 1905, p. 33, § 1; am. R.C. & C.L., § 8515; C.S., § 9410; I.C.A.,§ 20-501, was repealed by S.L. 1980, ch. 216, § 1.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 2012 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offender,” or a variation thereof, for “juvenile,” or a variation thereof, throughout the section.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 257, deleted “or legal guardians” and “or legal guardian” following “parents” and “parent” in the fourth sentence in the first paragraph and in paragraph (4).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1801 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 2 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

In its revision and renumbering of the youth rehabilitation act, formerly chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, the legislature, pursuant to S.L. 1995, ch. 44, § 1 entitled the new provisions of chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, as the Juvenile Corrections Act.

The term “this act” near the beginning of the eighth paragraph was added to this section by S.L. 1989, ch. 155, § 1, but, since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that this section as amended and redesignated should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Appealable Order.

Where magistrate’s order withholding judgment and placing youth on probation for a six months’ period was based upon the finding that the youth had committed the criminal offense of statutory rape, the order withholding judgment was appealable, even though it was not a final disposition of the matter. In re Doe, 98 Idaho 40, 557 P.2d 634 (1976).

Legislative Goal.

The legislative scheme — providing that a petition for the initial determination of whether a child is being adequately educated will be filed pursuant to the Youth Rehabilitation Act [now juvenile corrections act] (YRA) — is to ensure that a determination as to the adequacy of a child’s education is made by a court of competent jurisdiction without the stigma of criminal proceedings attaching; even more obvious is society’s objection, as expressed by the legislature in the enactment of the compulsory education statutes and the YRA, to have Idaho’s children educated so that they may be productive citizens not disadvantaged by lack of an education adequate to meet the demands of modern life. The goal is not to label children “juvenile delinquents” by bringing them before the courts, but to achieve society’s objective by positive and orderly resolution of the parties’ differences within an impartial legal framework. Bayes v. State, 117 Idaho 96, 785 P.2d 660 (Ct. App. 1989).

Scope.

Seventeen-year-old minor was brought within the purview of the juvenile corrections act,§ 20-501 et seq., for committing a battery. Since battery is not a status offense, the state was not required to prove her age in order to establish her guilt. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 139 Idaho 344, 79 P.3d 165 (Ct. App. 2003).

Speedy Trial.

Defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial did not apply until jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections statute had been waived. State v. Hernandez, 133 Idaho 576, 990 P.2d 742 (Ct. App. 1999).

Strict Construction.

The automatic waiver provision of§ 20-509, because of the legislative intent set forth in this section concerning the appropriate rehabilitation of the juvenile offender, is to be strictly construed. State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994).

Cited

State v. Bronson, 94 Idaho 306, 486 P.2d 1019 (1971); State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972); State v. Lindquist, 99 Idaho 766, 589 P.2d 101 (1979); State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 139 Idaho 1, 72 P.3d 547 (Ct. App. 2003); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009); State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, 233 P.3d 1275 (2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-502. Definitions.

When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Adult” means a person eighteen (18) years of age or older.
  2. “Commit” means to transfer legal custody.
  3. “Community-based program” means an in-home confinement program or a nonsecure or staff secure residential or nonresidential program operated to supervise and provide competency development to juvenile offenders in the least restrictive setting, consistent with public safety, operated by the state or under contract with the state or by the county.
  4. “Court” means any district court within the state of Idaho, or magistrate’s division thereof.
  5. “Department” means the state department of juvenile corrections.
  6. “Detention” means the temporary placement of juvenile offenders who require secure custody for their own or the community’s protection in physically restricting facilities.
  7. “Director” means the director of the department of juvenile corrections.
  8. “Diversion” means the utilization of local community resources, churches, counseling for the juvenile offender and/or family, substance abuse counseling, informal probation, community service work, voluntary restitution, or any other available service or program as an alternative to the filing of a petition with the juvenile court.
  9. “Judge” means a district judge or a magistrate.
  10. “Juvenile” means a person less than eighteen (18) years of age or who was less than eighteen (18) years of age at the time of any alleged act, omission or status.
  11. “Juvenile correctional center” means any state-operated residential facility or facility operated pursuant to a contract with the state that provides twenty-four (24) hour supervision and confinement for juvenile offenders committed to the custody of the department.
  12. “Juvenile detention center” means a secure facility established pursuant to sections 20-517 and 20-518, Idaho Code, and in compliance with IDAPA 05.01.02.
  13. “Juvenile offender” means a person under the age of eighteen (18) at the time of any act, omission or status and who has been adjudicated as being within the purview of this chapter.
  14. “Legal custody” means the relationship created by the court’s decree which imposes upon the custodian responsibilities of physical possession of the juvenile offender, the duty to protect, train and discipline him and to provide him with food, shelter, education and ordinary medical care.
  15. “Legal guardian” means a person appointed as guardian of a minor under the laws of Idaho. For the purposes of this chapter, legal guardian does not include and shall not be construed to include the owner, operator or the agent of an owner or operator of a detention center, observation and assessment center, secure facility, residential facility or other facility having temporary or long-term physical custody of the juvenile offender.
  16. “Observation and assessment program” means any state-operated or purchased service program responsible for temporary custody of juvenile offenders for observation and assessment.
  17. “Secure facility” means any architecturally secure residential facility that provides twenty-four (24) hour supervision and confinement for juvenile offenders committed to the custody of the department. (18) “Staff secure facility” means a nonarchitecturally secure residential facility with awake staff twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week for intensive supervision of juvenile offenders.

(19) “Work program” means a public service work project which employs juvenile offenders at a reasonable wage for the purpose of reimbursing victims of the juvenile offender’s delinquent behavior.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 2, p. 876; am. 1973, ch. 27, § 1, p. 51; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 3, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 2, p. 371; am. 1990, ch. 245, § 1, p. 696; am. 1990, ch. 355, § 1, p. 958; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 3, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 1, p. 925; am. 1997, ch. 83, § 1, p. 195; am. 2000, ch. 139, § 1, p. 365; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 2, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-502 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-501.

Another former§ 20-502, which comprised 1905, p. 33, § 2; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 8516; C.S., § 9411; I.C.A.,§ 20-502; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 8, p. 28, was repealed by S.L. 1980, ch. 216, § 1.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, deleted former subsection (7), defining “detention center” and added present subsection (12), redesignating the intervening subsections; substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in subsection (6); inserted “offender” in subsection (8); substituted “alleged act, omission or status” for “act, omission or status bringing the person within the purview of this chapter” in subsection (10); rewrote subsection (11), which formerly read, “Juvenile corrections center’ means any state-operated secure facility wherever located”; added present subsection (12); rewrote subsection (13), which formerly read, “Juvenile offender’ means a person under the age of eighteen (18), committed by the court to the custody, care and jurisdiction of the department for confinement in a secure or community-based facility following adjudication for a delinquent act which would constitute a felony or misdemeanor if committed by an adult”; inserted “offender” in subsection (14); substituted “residential facility that provides” for “state-operated facility or facility operated under contract with the state which provides” in subsection (17); and, in subsection (18), inserted “nonarchitecturally secure” and substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1802 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 3 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3 to 12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Legal Custody.

Subdivision (n) (now (14)) of this section does not anticipate physical possession and control as a prerequisite to custody. Harris v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 847 P.2d 1156 (1993).

Upon his release from the detention center, juvenile was still under the legal custody of the state although released to the possession of his parents, and the state thereby qualified for the immunity afforded by§ 6-904A. Harris v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 847 P.2d 1156 (1993).

Cited

Hayes v. Gardner, 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972); Melling v. Chaney, 126 Idaho 554, 887 P.2d 1061 (1994); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009); State v. Garcia, 159 Idaho 6, 355 P.3d 635 (2015).

§ 20-503. Department of juvenile corrections created — Appointment of director — Powers and duties of department.

  1. The department of juvenile corrections is hereby created. The department shall, for the purposes of section 20, article IV, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, be an executive department of the state government.
  2. The department shall be under the control and supervision of a director, who shall be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate. The director shall exercise all of the powers and duties necessary to carry out the proper administration of the department and may delegate duties to employees and officers of the department. The director shall have the authority to employ an attorney or attorneys to provide legal services to the department and such managers, assistants, clerical staff and other employees necessary to the proper functioning and administration of the department.
  3. The department of juvenile corrections shall be composed of such administrative units as may be established by the director for the proper and efficient administration of the powers and duties assigned to the director or the department. The director shall appoint an administrator for each administrative unit within the department.
  4. The director shall have full power and authority to do all things necessary to establish and provide for the administration and operation of the department of juvenile corrections and to accomplish an orderly transition to the department of juvenile corrections and the counties of the duties and responsibilities for juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice system being performed by the department of health and welfare. It is intended that the director and staff of the department of health and welfare work cooperatively with the director and staff of the department of juvenile corrections and the counties in this effort, while continuing with their duties to juvenile offenders in the custody of the department of health and welfare until the official transfer of such duties to the department of juvenile corrections and the counties on October 1, 1995.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-503, as added by 1995, ch. 44, § 4, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 2, p. 925; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 3, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-503 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-501.

Amendments.
Compiler’s Notes.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, deleted former subsection (5), which read: “Effective October 1, 1995, all existing commitments to the department of health and welfare made pursuant to section 16-1814(1)6., Idaho Code, are hereby transferred to the department of juvenile corrections. All powers, duties and functions with respect to those commitments are hereby transferred from the department of health and welfare to the department of juvenile corrections. The director of the department of juvenile corrections shall have all the powers and duties as may have been or could have been exercised by his predecessors in law pursuant to these commitments and he shall be the successor in law to those commitment duties without regard to the language of individual judicial orders of commitment for the juveniles.” Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1803 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 6 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 64 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 declared an emergency and provided that §§ 4, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 would be in full force and effect on and after their passage and approval. Approved March 6, 1995.

Section 13 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 declared an emergency and provided that § 2 should be in effect on March 21, 1995. Approved March 21, 1995.

§ 20-504. Duties of the department of juvenile corrections.

  1. The department shall have jurisdiction over all juvenile offenders committed to it pursuant to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code.
  2. The department shall have legal custody over all juvenile offenders committed to it by the courts of this state for confinement. The department shall not have legal guardianship of any juvenile offender.
  3. The department is responsible for all juvenile offenders committed to it by the courts of this state for confinement. The department shall also establish minimum standards for detention, care and certification of approved detention facilities based upon such standards.
  4. The department shall establish and administer all secure residential facilities including all state juvenile correctional centers.
  5. The department shall make all decisions regarding placement of juvenile offenders committed to it in the most appropriate program for supervision and treatment.
  6. The department shall establish an observation and assessment process for juvenile offenders committed to it by a court.
  7. The department shall establish liaison services with the counties or within the department’s regions.
  8. The department may establish and operate work programs designed to employ juvenile offenders committed to it in public service work projects for the purpose of reimbursing victims of the juvenile offender’s delinquent behavior.
  9. The department is hereby authorized and may place juvenile offenders committed to it pursuant to this chapter in a community-based or private program; provided, that the person, agency or association operating the facility or program has been approved and has otherwise complied with all applicable state and local laws.
  10. The department shall establish minimum standards for the operation of all private residential and nonresidential facilities and programs that provide services to juvenile offenders committed to the department. The standards shall be no more stringent than standards imposed for facilities operated by the department or for detention facilities operated by counties.
  11. The department shall provide technical assistance to counties establishing research-based programs for juvenile offenders who either have been found to come under the purview of this chapter or who have had their case informally diverted pursuant to section 20-511, Idaho Code, and who have not been committed to the legal custody of the department.
  12. The department shall have authority to adopt such administrative rules pursuant to the procedures provided in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, as are deemed necessary or appropriate for the functioning of the department and the implementation and administration of this act.
  13. Subject to any competitive bidding requirements otherwise provided by law, the department shall have authority to enter into contracts with a private association or organization or other public agency or organization for the inspection and licensure of detention facilities.
  14. Subject to any competitive bidding requirements otherwise provided by law, the department shall have authority to enter into contracts with private providers or local governmental agencies for the confinement or other permanent or temporary placement of juvenile offenders committed to its custody. (15) The department shall have authority to apply for, receive and expend federal funds, subject to appropriation by the legislature. The department shall have authority to establish guidelines for and administer the distribution of state juvenile corrections act funds to counties for the employment and training of county probation officers, the establishment of secure and nonsecure residential or nonresidential facilities and programs for juvenile offenders. The department may require that a county provide matching funds as a condition of receiving juvenile corrections act funds. The department, by rule, in cooperation with the courts and the counties, shall establish uniform standards for county juvenile probation services, as well as qualifications for and standards for the training of juvenile probation officers.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1826, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 5, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 3, p. 925; am. 1997, ch. 83, § 2, p. 195; am. 1997, ch. 261, § 1, p. 745; am. 2000, ch. 139, § 2, p. 365; am. 2003, ch. 35, § 1, p. 154; am. 2004, ch. 50, § 2, p. 236; am. 2007, ch. 47, § 1, p. 118; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 4, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-504 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-501.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 1997 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 1997 amendment, by ch. 83, § 2, in subsection (3) substituted “all” for “the” following “residential facilities including” and “centers” for “center” at the end of the subsection and in subsection (8) in the first sentence added “the” following “; provided that”.

The 1997 amendment, by ch. 261, § 1, in subsection (4) substituted “make all decisions regarding placement of” for “place” following “The department shall”.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 47, twice substituted “juvenile corrections act funds” for “block grant funds” in subsection (14).

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in subsections (1), (9), (11), and (14); added subsection (2); redesignated former subsections (2) through (14) as subsections (3) through (15); substituted “correctional centers” for “corrections centers” in subsection (4); inserted “committed to it” in subsection (8); in subsection (10), inserted “committed to the department”; and deleted former subsection (15), which read: “All of the powers and duties imposed upon or granted to the director of the department of health and welfare or the board of health and welfare pursuant to chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, are hereby transferred to the director of the department of juvenile corrections. The director shall have all such powers and duties as may have been or could have been exercised by his predecessors in law with respect to chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, and shall be the successor in law to all contractual obligations entered into by his predecessor in law.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1826 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 5 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995. The term “this act” at the end of subsection (12) was added by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, which revised chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, as the juvenile corrections act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3 to 12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

§ 20-504A. State juvenile correctional centers — Purposes — Powers and duties of the department and the director.

  1. The purposes of a juvenile correctional center shall be:
    1. The care, control and competency development of adjudicated juvenile offenders meeting standards for admission as adopted by the Idaho supreme court;
    2. The provision pursuant to agreement with the counties of detention services for juvenile offenders subject to administrative or court order;
    3. The provision of observation and assessment services for juvenile offenders committed to the department of juvenile corrections; and
    4. To accept for placement those individuals sentenced to a state juvenile correctional center by a district court, or pursuant to agreement with the board of correction, subsequent to waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction.
  2. The department shall administer and provide general oversight of all state juvenile correctional centers and any other secure or nonsecure facilities holding juvenile offenders committed to it as required by the juvenile corrections act.
  3. The department shall assure that the educational programs of state juvenile correctional centers are in compliance with educational standards that are approved by the Idaho state board of education or an accrediting association recognized by the Idaho state board of education.
  4. The department shall have the power to promulgate rules in accordance with the provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, for the administration and operation of state juvenile correctional centers.
  5. The director shall have the power:
    1. To employ, fix the salary and prescribe the duties of a superintendent for each juvenile correctional center. The superintendent shall be a nonclassified employee and shall serve at the pleasure of the director. With the advice of the director, the superintendent may appoint and prescribe the duties of assistants, instructors, specialists and other employees required for the operation of the center;
    2. To remove any employee of a juvenile correctional center for cause or as allowed by chapter 53, title 67, Idaho Code;
    3. To ensure that all teachers, except specialists, hold teaching certificates issued under the authority of the state board of education which are valid for the grades and subjects taught. All specialists shall hold diplomas from an accredited school of their specialty;
    4. To have, at all times, general supervision and control of all property, real and personal, appertaining to the center, and to insure the same; and
    5. To expend tax moneys appropriated, or otherwise placed to the credit of the center for maintenance and operation and to account for the same as prescribed by law.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-504A, as added by 1997, ch. 83, § 3, p. 195; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 5, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

State board of education,§ 33-101 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile correctional” for “juvenile corrections” in the section heading and throughout the section; substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c); inserted “holding juvenile offenders committed to it” near the end of subsection (2); substituted “that are approved” for “for secure juvenile facilities which are approved” in subsection (3); rewrote paragraph (5)(b), which formerly read, “To remove any employee of a juvenile corrections center for cause”; and deleted former subsection (6), which read: “Wherever the term ‘State Youth Training Center’ or ‘State Youth Services Center’ shall appear in the Idaho Code it shall mean any state juvenile corrections center.”

§ 20-505. Jurisdiction.

Subject to the prior jurisdiction of the United States, the court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile and over any adult who was a juvenile at the time of any act, omission or status, in the county in which the juvenile resides, or in the county in which the act, omission or status allegedly took place, in the following cases:

  1. Where the act, omission or status occurs in the state of Idaho and is prohibited by federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance by reason of minority only;
  2. Where the act or omission occurs in the state of Idaho and is a violation of any federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance which would be a crime if committed by an adult;
  3. Concerning any juvenile where the juvenile comes under the purview of the interstate compact for juveniles as set forth in chapter 19, title 16, Idaho Code;
  4. This chapter shall not apply to juvenile violators of beer, wine or other alcohol and tobacco laws; except that a juvenile violator under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the violation may, at the discretion of the court, be treated under the provisions of this chapter, provided that a juvenile taken into custody pursuant to section 20-516(1)(c), Idaho Code, for an alcohol age infraction under section 18-1502(e), Idaho Code, shall be treated within the provisions of this chapter;
  5. This chapter shall not apply to the juvenile offenders who are transferred for criminal prosecution as an adult, as provided in this chapter;
  6. This chapter shall not apply to juvenile violators of traffic, watercraft, fish and game, failure to obey a misdemeanor citation and criminal contempt laws; except that a juvenile violator under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of such violation may, at the discretion of the court, be treated under the provisions of this chapter;
  7. This chapter shall not apply to juvenile sex offenders who violate the provisions of section 18-8414, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1803, as added by 1976, ch. 233, § 2, p. 823; am. 1981, ch. 112, § 1, p. 168; am. 1981, ch. 222, § 6, p. 412; am. 1982, ch. 110, § 1, p. 311; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 4, p. 148; am. 1990, ch. 355, § 2, p. 958; am. 1993, ch. 154, § 2, p. 390; am. 1994, ch. 150, § 1, p. 344; am. 1994, ch. 414, § 2, p. 1302; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 6, p. 65; am. 1996, ch. 261, § 3, p. 857; am. 1998, ch. 69, § 1, p. 262; am. 1999, ch. 388, § 1, p. 1083; am. 1999, ch. 389, § 1, p. 1085; am. 2002, ch. 185, § 1, p. 536; am. 2004, ch. 270, § 3, p. 752; am. 2005, ch. 94, § 1, p. 314; am. 2005, ch. 187, § 1, p. 573; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 6, p. 39; am. 2016, ch. 344, § 2, p. 987.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-505 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-501.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 1999 which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 1999 amendment, by ch. 388, § 1, deleted former subdivision (6) and redesignated subdivision (7) as subdivision (6).

The 1999 amendment, by ch. 389, § 1, deleted subdivision (7).

This section was amended by two 2005 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2005 amendment, by ch. 94, § 1, inserted “occurs in the state of Idaho and” in subsections (1) and (2) and deleted the words “regardless of where the same occurred” following “law or ordinance by reason of minority only” in subsection (1) and following “municipal law or ordinance which would be a crime if committed by an adult” in subsection (2).

The 2005 amendment, by ch. 187, § 1, substituted “eighteen (18) years” for “fourteen (14) years” in subsections (4) and (6).

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, rewrote subsection (5), which formerly read: “This chapter shall not apply to the violent juvenile offender, as defined in this chapter.”

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 344, added “provided that a juvenile taken into custody pursuant to section 20-516(1)(c), Idaho Code, for an alcohol age infraction under section 18-1502(e), Idaho Code, shall be treated within the provisions of this chapter” at the end of subsection (4).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1803 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 6 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 6 of S.L. 1996, ch. 261 provided that §§ 1 to 4 should be in full force and effect July 1, 1996 and § 5 should be in full force and effect March 28, 1997.

CASE NOTES

Applicability.

This section does not apply to contempt proceedings brought pursuant to Idaho R. Crim. P. 42, and, consequently,§ 20-507 does not divest the court of jurisdiction. State v. Juarez, 159 Idaho 91, 356 P.3d 384 (2015).

Felony Traffic Offenses.

Felony traffic offenses are not excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction as traffic violations because felonies are not “violations” under the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act). Zamora v. State, 123 Idaho 192, 846 P.2d 194 (1993).

Jurisdiction Found.

Where a petition alleged that defendant was a juvenile when the charged offense of battery occurred, the petition thereby alleged the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 139 Idaho 344, 79 P.3d 165 (Ct. App. 2003).

In a case where defendant was ordered to make payments in a juvenile proceeding, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the state’s motion for contempt because the original exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court was not implicated where a civil contempt sanction was sought; the authority to adjudicate the claimed contempt derived from the inherent powers of the court. State v. Garcia, 159 Idaho 6, 355 P.3d 635 (2015).

Jurisdiction Not Found.

Absent a statute or rule extending its jurisdiction, a juvenile court’s jurisdiction to amend or set aside a judgment expires once the judgment becomes final, either by expiration of the time for appeal or affirmance of the judgment on appeal. State v. Doe (In the Interest of Doe), — Idaho —, 438 P.3d 769 (2019).

Traffic Infractions.

Cases involving minors accused of traffic infractions or offenses are processed in the same manner as adult cases; the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) does not extend to traffic violations. State v. Ritchie, 114 Idaho 528, 757 P.2d 1247 (Ct. App. 1988).

Tried as Adult.

This section and§ 18-216 provide that it is the juvenile court which has exclusive jurisdiction over any person who is charged with having violated a law before he or she turned eighteen years of age. Moreover, except in the case of serious violent crimes which are automatically triable within the district court under§ 20-509, the district court may only try a person as an adult who would otherwise come within the purview of youth rehabilitation act (YRA) (now juvenile corrections act) if a court exercising jurisdiction under the YRA waives its jurisdiction by holding a waiver hearing under§ 18-216(2). State v. Walsh, 124 Idaho 714, 864 P.2d 160 (1993).

The juvenile court had exclusive, original jurisdiction over adult defendant, pursuant to this section, because defendant was a minor when he allegedly committed three counts of lewd conduct. However,§ 20-507’s last clause, teamed with its incorporation of§ 20-508(2), demonstrates clear legislative intent to permit a juvenile court to entertain a motion to waive the defendant into adult criminal court, even if the court otherwise lacks jurisdiction. State v. Doe, 156 Idaho 243, 322 P.3d 976 (2014).

Waiver of Jurisdiction.

In the event a person between the ages of fourteen and eighteen is charged with or pleads guilty to any crime which is not specifically enumerated as an exception to youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) jurisdiction under§ 20-509 (or which is not included in the exceptions to juvenile court jurisdiction found in this section), the minor remains under the jurisdiction of the youth rehabilitation act; however, the prosecutor, the minor or the district court itself may file a motion pursuant to§ 20-508 seeking to waive youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction. In that situation, the district court must follow the procedures set forth in§ 20-508, and hold a hearing to determine whether youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction should be waived. In the absence of the required motion and hearing, the minor remains under youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction for disposition. State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994).

Cited

State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985); Kinley v. State, 108 Idaho 862, 702 P.2d 900 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009); State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593, 416 P.3d 965 (2018).

Decisions Under Prior Law

Conviction of Crime.

Minors found to be guilty of certain criminal charges were properly found, by the court, to be juvenile delinquents. Hewlett v. Probate Court, 66 Idaho 690, 168 P.2d 77 (1946).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

§ 20-506. Transfer from other courts.

If during the pendency of a criminal or quasi-criminal charge against any juvenile in any other court, it shall be ascertained that the juvenile was under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of committing the alleged offense, except where such juvenile has left the state, or where said charge is that such juvenile is a juvenile traffic, beer, wine or other alcohol or tobacco violator, or is within the purview of section 20-508(1)(a) or (1)(b), Idaho Code, it shall be the duty of such court forthwith to transfer the case, together with all the papers, documents and testimony connected therewith, to the court having jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the offense charged. The court making such transfer shall order the juvenile to be taken forthwith to the court to which the transfer is being made or place of detention designated by the court or shall release the juvenile to the custody of some suitable person to be brought before the court at a time designated. The court to which the case is transferred shall then proceed as provided in this act.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 4, p. 876; am. 1981, ch. 222, § 7, p. 412; am. 1982, ch. 110, § 2, p. 311; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 7, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1804 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 7 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” at the end of the section was added to this section by S.L. 1963, ch. 319, § 4, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Applicability of § 20-509.

This section, governing the transfer of juveniles, is operative only when the juvenile court has jurisdiction to proceed; former§ 16-1806A (now§ 20-509), however, excludes certain crimes ab initio from juvenile court jurisdiction. Thus, there is no conflict between these sections, since this section is not applicable to those cases coming within the purview of former§ 16-1806A (now§ 20-509). State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985).

Continuing Jurisdiction.

This section by reference to subdivisions (1)(a) and (1)(b) of former§ 16-1806 (now§ 20-508) means that criminal proceedings commenced against a defendant who was less than eighteen at the time the offense was allegedly committed by him may continue only where the jurisdiction under the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act, this chapter) has been previously waived. Hayes v. Gardner, 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972).

Felony Traffic Offenses.

Felony traffic offenses are not excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction as traffic violations because felonies are not “violations” under the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act). Zamora v. State, 123 Idaho 192, 846 P.2d 194 (1993).

Cited

State v. McKeown, 108 Idaho 452, 700 P.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Matthews, 108 Idaho 453, 700 P.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-507. Retention of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction obtained by the court in the case of a juvenile offender shall be retained by it for the purposes of this act until he becomes twenty-one (21) years of age, unless terminated prior thereto. If a juvenile offender under the jurisdiction of the court and after attaining eighteen (18) years of age, is charged with a felony, he shall be treated as any other adult offender. If a person eighteen (18) years of age or older already under court jurisdiction is convicted of a felony, that conviction shall terminate the jurisdiction of the court, provided however, nothing herein contained shall prohibit any court from proceeding as provided in section 20-508(2), Idaho Code.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 5, p. 876; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 5, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 3, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 8, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 7, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1805 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 8 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in the first sentence was added to this section by S.L. 1963, ch. 319, § 5, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, twice inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the first two sentences.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Application.

In a case where defendant was ordered to make payments in a juvenile proceeding, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the state’s motion for contempt because the original exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court was not implicated where a civil contempt sanction was sought; the authority to adjudicate the claimed contempt derived from the inherent powers of the court. State v. Garcia, 159 Idaho 6, 355 P.3d 635 (2015).

Jurisdiction.

This section does not apply to contempt proceedings brought pursuant to Idaho R. Crim. P. 42, and, consequently, it does not divest the court of jurisdiction. State v. Juarez, 159 Idaho 91, 356 P.3d 384 (2015).

This section did not operate to divest the magistrate court of jurisdiction where defendant was over 18 years old at the time of the alleged contempt, and the criminal charge of contempt under§ 18-1801 was not within the court’s exclusive, original jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act. State v. Juarez, 159 Idaho 91, 356 P.3d 384 (2015).

Jurisdiction Terminated.

Under the plain language of this section, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction terminated when a juvenile reached 21 years of age despite his having admitted to violating a condition of his probation and the state filing a petition against him prior to his becoming 21. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 326, 208 P.3d 730 (2009).

Where state filed a petition, pursuant to this section, to transfer defendant, who was adjudicated as a juvenile with a crime that required him to register as a juvenile sex offender, in the defendant’s juvenile case after the defendant had turned 21, that court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the petition. State v. Giovanelli, 152 Idaho 717, 274 P.3d 18 (Ct. App. 2012).

Waiver to Adult Court.

The juvenile court had exclusive, original jurisdiction over adult defendant, pursuant to§ 20-505, because defendant was a minor when he allegedly committed three counts of lewd conduct. However, this section’s last clause, teamed with its incorporation of§ 20-508(2), demonstrates clear legislative intent to permit a juvenile court to entertain a motion to waive the defendant into adult criminal court, even if the court otherwise lacks jurisdiction. State v. Doe, 156 Idaho 243, 322 P.3d 976 (2014).

Cited

Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978); State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009); State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593, 416 P.3d 965 (2018); State v. Doe (In the Interest of Doe), — Idaho —, 438 P.3d 769 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

§ 20-508. Waiver of jurisdiction and transfer to other courts.

  1. After the filing of a petition and after full investigation and hearing, the court may waive jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act over the juvenile and order that the juvenile be held for adult criminal proceedings when:
    1. A juvenile is alleged to have committed any of the crimes enumerated in section 20-509, Idaho Code; or
    2. A juvenile is alleged to have committed an act other than those enumerated in section 20-509, Idaho Code, after the child became fourteen (14) years of age which would be a crime if committed by an adult; or
    3. An adult at the time of the filing of the petition is alleged to have committed an act prior to his having become eighteen (18) years of age which would be a felony if committed by an adult, and the court finds that the adult is not committable to an institution for people with intellectual disabilities or mental illness, is not treatable in any available institution or facility available to the state designed for the care and treatment of juveniles, or that the safety of the community requires the adult continue under restraint; or
    4. An adult already under the jurisdiction of the court is alleged to have committed a crime while an adult.
  2. A motion to waive jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act and prosecute a juvenile under the criminal law may be made by the prosecuting attorney, the juvenile, or by motion of the court upon its own initiative. The motion shall be in writing and contain the grounds and reasons in support thereof.
  3. Upon the filing of a motion to waive jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act, the court shall enter an order setting the motion for hearing at a time and date certain and shall order a full and complete investigation of the circumstances of the alleged offense to be conducted by county probation, or such other agency or investigation officer designated by the court.
  4. Upon setting the time for the hearing upon the motion to waive jurisdiction, the court shall give written notice of said hearing to the juvenile, and the parents, guardian or custodian of the juvenile, and the prosecuting attorney, at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing, or a lesser period stipulated by the parties, and such notice shall inform the juvenile and the parents, guardian or custodian of the juvenile of their right to court appointed counsel. Service of the notice shall be made in the manner prescribed for service of a summons under section 20-512, Idaho Code.
  5. The hearing upon the motion to waive jurisdiction shall be held in the same manner as an evidentiary hearing upon the original petition and shall be made part of the record.
  6. If as a result of the hearing on the motion to waive jurisdiction the court shall determine that jurisdiction should not be waived, the petition shall be processed in the customary manner as a juvenile corrections act proceeding. However, in the event the court determines, as a result of the hearing, that juvenile corrections act jurisdiction should be waived and the juvenile should be prosecuted under the criminal laws of the state of Idaho, the court shall enter findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it bases such decision together with a decree waiving juvenile corrections act jurisdiction and binding the juvenile over to the authorities for prosecution under the criminal laws of the state of Idaho.
  7. No motion to waive juvenile corrections act jurisdiction shall be recognized, considered, or heard by the court in the same case once the court has entered an order or decree in that case that said juvenile has come within the purview of the juvenile corrections act, and all subsequent proceedings after the decree finding the juvenile within the purview of the act must be under and pursuant to the act and not as a criminal proceeding.
  8. In considering whether or not to waive juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile, the juvenile court shall consider the following factors:
    1. The seriousness of the offense and whether the protection of the community requires isolation of the juvenile beyond that afforded by juvenile facilities;
    2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner;
    3. Whether the alleged offense was against persons or property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons;
    4. The maturity of the juvenile as determined by considerations of his home, environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living;
    5. The juvenile’s record and previous history of contacts with the juvenile corrections system;
    6. The likelihood that the juvenile will develop competency and life skills to become a contributing member of the community by use of facilities and resources available to the court;
    7. The amount of weight to be given to each of the factors listed in subsection (8) of this section is discretionary with the court, and a determination that the juvenile is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law may be based on any one (1) or a combination of the factors set forth within this section, which shall be recited in the order of waiver.
  9. If the court does not waive jurisdiction and order a juvenile or adult held for criminal proceedings, the court in a county other than the juvenile’s or adult’s home county, after entering a decree that the juvenile or adult is within the purview of this chapter, may certify the case for sentencing to the court of the county in which the juvenile offender or adult resides upon being notified that the receiving court is willing to accept transfer. In the event of a transfer, which should be made unless the court finds it contrary to the interest of the juvenile offender or adult, the jurisdiction of the receiving court shall attach to the same extent as if the court had original jurisdiction.
  10. Upon conviction of a juvenile offender held for adult criminal proceedings under this section, the sentencing judge may, if a finding is made that adult sentencing measures would be inappropriate:
    1. Sentence the convicted person in accordance with the juvenile sentencing options set forth in this chapter; or
    2. Sentence the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction but suspend the sentence and retain jurisdiction pursuant to section 19-2601A, Idaho Code, and commit the defendant to the dual custody of the department of juvenile corrections and the state board of correction.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1806, as added by 1977, ch. 165, § 2, p. 427; am. 1981, ch. 162, § 1, p. 284; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 9, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 47, § 1, p. 111; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 4, p. 925; am. 1997, ch. 82, § 1, p. 192; am. 1999, ch. 390, § 1, p. 1086; am. 2000, ch. 246, § 2, p. 686; am. 2007, ch. 308, § 2, p. 862; am. 2010, ch. 235, § 9, p. 542; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 8, p. 39; am. 2015, ch. 113, § 6, p. 281.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Appointment of custodian for minor,§ 16-1601 et seq.

Appointment of guardian for minor,§ 15-5-201 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 308, updated the second section reference in subsection (10)(b).

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 235, substituted “institution for people with intellectual disabilities or mental illness” for “institution for the mentally deficient or mentally ill” in paragraph (1)(c).

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the end of the first sentence and near the middle of the last sentence in subsection (9) and in the introductory paragraph of subsection (10).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 113, rewrote paragraph (10)(b), which formerly read: “Sentence the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction but suspend the sentence or withhold judgment pursuant to section 19-2601, Idaho Code, and commit the defendant to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections for an indeterminate period of time in accordance with section 20-520(1)(r), Idaho Code. The court, in its discretion, may order that the suspended sentence or withheld judgment be conditioned upon the convicted person’s full compliance with all reasonable program requirements of the department of juvenile corrections. Such a sentence may also set terms of probation, which may be served under the supervision of county juvenile probation. However, in no event may the total of the actual time spent by the convicted person in the custody of the department plus any adult sentence imposed by the court exceed the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same crime”; and deleted former paragraph (10)(c) which read: “If a convicted person is given a suspended sentence or withheld judgment conditioned upon the convicted person’s compliance with all reasonable program requirements of the department pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, and if the department reasonably believes that the convicted person is failing to comply with all reasonable program requirements, the department may petition the sentencing court to revoke the commitment to the department and transfer the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction for the remainder of the sentence.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1806 and was amended and redesignated as this section by §  9 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3 to 12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Application.

This section and§ 18-216 make it clear that not all chronological age juveniles will receive treatment as juveniles. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

Discretion of Court.

The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in waiving youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) jurisdiction, where there was ample competent evidence in the record from which the magistrate reasonably concluded that defendant was a dangerous individual; that a real possibility existed that he would not be rehabilitated before he reached the age of 21; and that protection of the community required his isolation beyond that afforded by the juvenile facilities. State v. Christensen, 100 Idaho 631, 603 P.2d 586 (1979).

A waiver decision will not be regarded as an abuse of discretion when the court: (1) perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the available choices; and (3) reached its decision through an exercise of reason. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009).

Double Jeopardy.

This section does not authorize an adjudication or determination of facts beyond the existence of probable cause to believe that a particular crime was committed and that a particular juvenile committed it; it merely authorizes the trial court to consider circumstances in aggravation as bearing on the question of whether juvenile jurisdiction should be retained and a determination which exceeds that narrow scope could result in the attachment of double jeopardy and a plea in bar to any proceedings in an adult court. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

Legislative Intent.

It was entirely proper for the magistrate, in considering defendant’s record and history of previous contacts with the juvenile justice system, to allow testimony concerning his misdemeanor offenses and dismissed felony charges, inasmuch as there is nothing in the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) to indicate the legislature, in referring to a child’s “record” and “contacts with the juvenile justice system,” intended to limit the magistrate’s consideration to felony type conduct only. State v. Christensen, 100 Idaho 631, 603 P.2d 586 (1979).

Purpose.

This section and its antecedents were intended to implement the statutory provisions of§ 18-216 and to the extent of the conflict,§ 18-216 controls. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

The sole function of the transfer hearing is to determine whether the interests of the child and society are best served by youth rehabilitation act [now juvenile corrections act] proceedings or by adult proceedings, and the hearings upon which the determination is made are to be informal in nature. State v. Christensen, 100 Idaho 631, 603 P.2d 586 (1979).

Waiver.
— Criteria.

A probable cause finding in conjunction with the procedure of waiving juvenile jurisdiction is not required by the Idaho or federal constitutions, since, when a juvenile court waives jurisdiction, an adult court must still conduct a preliminary hearing at which probable cause must be determined and if juvenile jurisdiction is not waived a probable cause determination is made by the juvenile court as to whether and how to proceed on the juvenile petition. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

In proceedings to determine whether or not juvenile jurisdiction should be waived, where the magistrate found that each of the defendants was emotionally and mentally mature and that the prognosis for each defendant under available juvenile rehabilitation programs was unsatisfactory and that they would likely remain dangerous to the public if released at age 21 and in the interim each would be likely to disrupt the rehabilitation of other juveniles, such finding met the criteria necessary for waiver of jurisdiction set forth in State v, Gibbs , 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972). Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

The nature of the accusation is a relevant factor for the court to consider in deciding whether or not to waive jurisdiction. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

Where district court chose to review decision of magistrate denying waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction as an appellate court and then elected to hear additional evidence that California was terminating its contract with Idaho to provide juvenile rehabilitation facilities, it was appropriate for the district court to weigh de novo the factors considered by the magistrate along with the factor established by the additional evidence; it was discretionary with the district court to base its decision on any one or a combination of these factors under subsection (8) of this section as long as the district court accepted those findings of the magistrate which were unaffected by the additional evidence. Dillard v. State, 101 Idaho 917, 623 P.2d 1294 (1981). Paragraph (8)(a) states only that the court must consider the seriousness of the offense and whether the protection of the community requires isolation beyond that of a juvenile facility. Nowhere in the statute is a defendant’s level of involvement or hierarchy in the scheme of the crime contemplated. State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593, 416 P.3d 965 (2018).

Paragraph (8)(b) language provides only whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, OR willful manner. The statute does not require that the offense be committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, AND willful manner. State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593, 416 P.3d 965 (2018).

Magistrate court did not err in determining that the heroin trafficking was a crime against persons, rather than a crime against property, for purposes of paragraph (8)(c), given heroin’s undeniable harmful physical and psychological effects. State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593, 416 P.3d 965 (2018).

— Procedural Requirements.

In proceeding to determine whether or not juvenile jurisdiction should be waived, the only determination by the magistrate was the existence of probable cause to justify transfer to the adult court and such determination could be based on hearsay and need not be tested by cross-examination and confrontation. Wolf v. State, 99 Idaho 476, 583 P.2d 1011 (1978).

In the event a person between the ages of fourteen and eighteen is charged with or pleads guilty to any crime which is not specifically enumerated as an exception to youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) jurisdiction under§ 20-509 (or which is not included in the exceptions to juvenile court jurisdiction found in this section), the minor remains under the jurisdiction of the youth rehabilitation act; however, the prosecutor, the minor or the district court itself may file a motion pursuant to this section seeking to waive youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction. In that situation, the district court must follow the procedures set forth in this section, and hold a hearing to determine whether youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction should be waived. In the absence of the required motion and hearing, the minor remains under youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction for disposition. State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994).

— Proper.

Where the magistrate ordered a full investigation of the circumstances of the alleged offense and considered the results of the investigation prior to waiving juvenile jurisdiction, the magistrate complied with this section. Zamora v. State, 123 Idaho 192, 846 P.2d 194 (1993).

District court did not abuse its discretion by waiving a 15-year-old defendant into adult court for trial, because each factor considered was supported by substantial and competent evidence, including the young age of the victim and the seriousness of the alleged crimes of attempted murder, battery, and forcible penetration. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009).

— Review.

The magistrate’s order waiving its jurisdiction over a juvenile is a final order of the magistrate’s court and must be appealed to the district court prior to further proceedings in district court in the matter. State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 587 P.2d 305 (1978). Although a hearing was required before defendant could waive jurisdiction to district court for charges stemming from conduct that occurred when he was a minor, defendant waived the issue by failing to object to the lack of such a hearing before appeal. State v. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482, 80 P.3d 1083 (2003).

Waiver to Adult Court.

The juvenile court had exclusive, original jurisdiction over adult defendant, pursuant to§ 20-505, because defendant was a minor when he allegedly committed three counts of lewd conduct. However,§ 20-507’s last clause, teamed with its incorporation of subsection (2) of this section, demonstrates clear legislative intent to permit a juvenile court to entertain a motion to waive the defendant into adult criminal court, even if the court otherwise lacks jurisdiction. State v. Doe, 156 Idaho 243, 322 P.3d 976 (2014).

Cited

State v. Lute, 108 Idaho 905, 702 P.2d 1365 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Dillard, 110 Idaho 834, 718 P.2d 1272 (Ct. App. 1986); Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22, 218 P.3d 1 (Ct. App. 2009).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Investigation and Hearing.

Prior to waiving jurisdiction, magistrate is required to conduct a full investigation and hearing which must be prefaced by timely notice which adequately informs the parties of the specific issues they must be prepared to meet. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

This section of the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act), when read in conjunction with§ 1-103 and former§ 16-1802(a) (now 20-502(1)), provides that a child subject to the act may be held for prosecution as an adult rather than for proceedings as a juvenile under the youth rehabilitation act only after a full investigation and hearing. Hayes v. Gardner, 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972).

The legislative intent as to the decision of whether a youthful offender should be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding or processed under the provisions of the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act), should be a judicial one made after a full investigation and hearing. Hayes v. Gardner, 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972).

Investigation Inadequate.

The investigation required by this section was inadequate where the record disclosed nothing concerning the child’s mental and emotional development beyond a reference to family-wise counseling, no inquiry into the availability of facilities, programs and personnel capable of affording rehabilitative care and contained a description of the offenses alleged and a vague reference to previous offenses. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

A juvenile’s right to a full investigation cannot be avoided by having none at all. Hayes v. Gardner, 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972).

Jurisdiction.

When an order is entered waiving juvenile jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s division of the district court, sitting as a juvenile court, is extinguished and at the same time there is effected a transfer of jurisdiction to the district court sitting as an adult criminal court. State v. Harwood, 98 Idaho 793, 572 P.2d 1228 (1977).

— Selection.

After a review of the facts and circumstances, court could elect to assume jurisdiction under former§ 16-1803 (now§ 20-505), based on a determination that the accused was a violator amenable to rehabilitation under the youth rehabilitation act [now juvenile corrections act], or could elect to waive jurisdiction under this section, but could not do both. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

Where a juvenile in detention in Idaho for probation violation was the subject of a request for extradition from Colorado for murder, a hearing in juvenile court to release its jurisdiction under this section was beyond extradition procedural requirements. Snyder v. State, 95 Idaho 643, 516 P.2d 700 (1973).

Notice.

Where summonses issued to a child and his parents for interviews, a primary purpose of which was to determine whether jurisdiction under the youth rehabilitation act [now juvenile correction act] should be waived, contained no reference to this critically important determination, the requirement of timely and adequate notice required by due process was not satisfied. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

Waiver.
— Criteria.

Jurisdiction ordinarily is waived when (1) the defendant has acquired such a degree of emotional or mental maturity that he is not receptive to rehabilitative programs designed for children; (2) although the defendant is immature his disturbance has eluded exhaustive prior efforts at correction through existing juvenile programs; or (3) the defendant is immature and might be treated, but the nature of his difficulty is likely to render him dangerous to the public, if released at age twenty-one or to disrupt the rehabilitation of other children in the program prior to his release. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972). A valid waiver of jurisdiction must be based on a specific finding, supported by substantial and competent evidence obtained in the full investigation required by this section, that the defendant is not amenable to rehabilitative treatment under juvenile court jurisdiction. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

Since the former statute provided no standards for determining when jurisdiction could be waived, state courts had to fashion controlling criteria when the waiver statute was subject to constitutional challenge. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

Each criterion for waiver of jurisdiction requires that the child’s potential for rehabilitation be evaluated in terms of his present state of development and the availability of facilities, programs and personnel capable of providing effective individualized treatment. State v. Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 500 P.2d 209 (1972).

— Review.

A review of a juvenile jurisdiction waiver must be sought before the charges as an adult have proceeded to trial and, in effectuating such an appeal, review should first be sought in the district court while proceedings in the adult court are held in abeyance pending resolution of the waiver issue. State v. Harwood, 98 Idaho 793, 572 P.2d 1228 (1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Ignoring Individualism: How a Disregard for Neuroscience and Supreme Court Precedent Makes for Bad Policy in Idaho’s Mandatory Juvenile Transfer Law, Comment. 52 Idaho L. Rev. 719 (2016).

Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

C.J.S.

§ 20-509. Violent offenses, controlled substances violations near schools and offenders.

  1. Any juvenile, age fourteen (14) years to age eighteen (18) years, who is alleged to have committed any of the following crimes or any person under age fourteen (14) years who is alleged to have committed any of the following crimes and, pursuant to section 20-508, Idaho Code, has been ordered by the court to be held for adult criminal proceedings:
    1. Murder of any degree or attempted murder;
    2. Robbery;
    3. Rape as defined in section 18-6101, Idaho Code;
    4. Forcible sexual penetration by the use of a foreign object;
    5. Infamous crimes against nature, committed by force or violence;
    6. Mayhem;
    7. Assault or battery with the intent to commit any of the above serious felonies;
    8. A violation of the provisions of section 37-2732(a)(1)(A), (B) or (C), Idaho Code, when the violation occurred on or within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property of any public or private primary or secondary school, or in those portions of any building, park, stadium or other structure or grounds which were, at the time of the violation, being used for an activity sponsored by or through such a school;
    9. Arson in the first degree and aggravated arson;
  2. Once a juvenile has been formally charged or indicted pursuant to this section or has been transferred for criminal prosecution as an adult pursuant to the waiver provisions of section 20-508, Idaho Code, or this section, the juvenile shall be held in a county jail or other adult prison facility unless the court, after finding good cause, orders otherwise.
  3. Except as otherwise allowed by subsection (4) of this section, once a juvenile offender has been found to have committed the offense for which the juvenile offender was charged, indicted or transferred pursuant to this section or section 20-508, Idaho Code, or has been found guilty or pled guilty to a lesser offense or amended charge growing out of or included within the original charge, whether or not such lesser offense or amended charge is included within the acts enumerated in subsection (1) of this section, the juvenile offender shall thereafter be handled in every respect as an adult. For any subsequent violation of Idaho law, the juvenile offender shall be handled in every respect as an adult.
  4. Upon the conviction of a juvenile offender pursuant to this section, the sentencing judge may, if a finding is made that adult sentencing measures would be inappropriate:
    1. Sentence the convicted person in accordance with the juvenile sentencing options set forth in this chapter; or (b) Sentence the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction but suspend the sentence pursuant to section 19-2601A, Idaho Code, and commit the defendant to the dual custody of the department of juvenile corrections and the state board of correction.

shall be charged, arrested and proceeded against by complaint, indictment or information as an adult. All other felonies or misdemeanors charged in the complaint, indictment or information, which are based on the same act or transaction or on one (1) or more acts or transactions as the violent or controlled substances offense shall similarly be charged, arrested and proceeded against as an adult. Any juvenile proceeded against pursuant to this section shall be accorded all constitutional rights, including bail and trial by jury, and procedural safeguards as if that juvenile were an adult defendant.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1806A, as added by 1981, ch. 151, § 1, p. 262; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 6, p. 148; am. 1990, ch. 268, § 5, p. 755; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 10, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 46, § 1, p. 110; am. 1995, ch. 47, § 2, p. 111; am. 1995, ch. 48, § 1, p. 114; am. 1997, ch. 142, § 1, p. 413; am. 2000, ch. 73, § 1, p. 686; am. 2000, ch. 246, § 3, p. 155; am. 2007, ch. 308, § 3, p. 862; am. 2010, ch. 352, § 10, p. 920; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 9, p. 39; am. 2015, ch. 113, § 7, p. 281; am. 2016, ch. 296, § 13, p. 828.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 2000 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2000 amendment, by ch. 73, § 1, in subsection (1), inserted “years” following “fourteen (14)”, in subdivision (1)(i), inserted “(1)” following “or on one”; in subsection (3), inserted “pursuant to this section or section 20-508, Idaho Code” following “indicted or transferred”; and made minor punctuation and stylistic changes.

The 2000 amendment, by ch. 246, § 3, in subsection (1), inserted “years” following “fourteen (14)”, in subdivision (1)(i), inserted “(1)” following “or on one”; in subsection (3), added “Except as otherwise allowed by subsection (4) of this section,”; rewrote the introductory language of subsection (4) which formerly read: “The sentencing judge of any juvenile convicted pursuant to this section may choose to sentence the convicted person in accordance with the juvenile sentencing options set forth in this act, if a finding is made that adult sentencing measures would be inappropriate”; and added subdivision (4)(a) through (4)(c); and made minor punctuation and stylistic changes.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 308, updated the second section reference in subsection (4)(b).

The 2010 amendment, by ch. 352, rewrote paragraph (1)(c), which read: “Rape, but excluding statutory rape”; and added paragraph (1)(d) and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs in subsection (1).

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” three times in subsection (3) and in the introductory paragraph of subsection (4).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 113, rewrote paragraph (4)(b), which formerly read: “Sentence the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction but suspend the sentence or withhold judgment pursuant to section 19-2601, Idaho Code, and commit the defendant to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections for an indeterminate period of time in accordance with section 20-520(1)(r), Idaho Code. The court, in its discretion, may order that the suspended sentence or withheld judgment be conditioned upon the convicted person’s full compliance with all reasonable program requirements of the department of juvenile corrections. Such a sentence may also set terms of probation, which may be served under the supervision of county juvenile probation. However, in no event may the total of the actual time spent by the convicted person in the custody of the department plus any adult sentence imposed by the court exceed the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same crime.”; and deleted former paragraph (4)(c), which read: “If a convicted person is given a suspended sentence or withheld judgment conditioned upon the convicted person’s compliance with all reasonable program requirements of the department pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, and if the department reasonably believes that the convicted person is failing to comply with all reasonable program requirements, the department may petition the sentencing court to revoke the commitment to the department and transfer the convicted person to the county jail or to the custody of the state board of correction for the remainder of the sentence”. The 2016 amendment, by ch. 296, deleted former paragraph (1)(d), which read: “Male rape as defined in section 18-6108, Idaho Code” and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1806A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 10 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 15 of S.L. 1984, ch. 81 provided that section 6 of the act should take effect July 1, 1984, while the other sections of the act should take effect on July 1, 1985.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Applicability of § 20-506.

Section 20-506, governing the transfer of juveniles, is operative only when the juvenile court has jurisdiction to proceed; this section, however, excludes certain crimes ab initio from juvenile court jurisdiction. Thus, there is no conflict between these sections, since§ 20-506 is not applicable to those cases coming within the purview of this section. State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985).

Application.

This section applies to persons who are age 14 years to age 18 years at the time the act is committed. State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985).

Because lewd conduct with a minor under the age of 16 was not an enumerated offense under this section for which defendant could have been tried as an adult, defendant could not be tried for or convicted of that crime, which would otherwise have been a criminal act if committed by someone over the age of 14, where the evidence showed that he was 13 years old for most of the period during which the sexual conduct at issue occurred. State v. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482, 80 P.3d 1083 (2003).

District court did not abuse its discretion by waiving a 15-year-old defendant into adult court for trial, because each factor considered was supported by substantial and competent evidence, including the young age of the victim and the seriousness of the alleged crimes of attempted murder, battery, and forcible penetration. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009).

District court did not err in rejecting defendant’s claim that the automatic waiver provision of this section constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant, charged and convicted for poisoning food, medicine, or wells, had no statutory right to be proceeded against as a minor and was never entitled to the advantage of being proceeded against as a minor. State v. Jensen, 161 Idaho 243, 385 P.3d 5 (Ct. App. 2016).

Best Interests of Defendant.

Where defendant did not contend there was any error in court’s decision to sentence him as an adult, nor did the record on appeal indicate that he ever requested that the court impose sentence pursuant to the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act of 1995), no error was shown with respect to the district court’s consideration of the best interests of defendant. State v. Moore, 127 Idaho 780, 906 P.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1995).

Consideration of Age.

In deciding whether a 14-year-old defendant should be sentenced as an adult at the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered defendant’s youth and what was in defendant’s best interest. This was the appropriate time for the trial court to give special consideration to these factors. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 814 P.2d 401 (1991).

Although the best interest of the child is not one of the goals of sentencing to be considered when a juvenile is sentenced as an adult, a juvenile defendant’s age is one of the many circumstances that a sentencing court may and should consider in fashioning an appropriate sentence. State v. Moore, 127 Idaho 780, 906 P.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1995).

When a juvenile who has reached the age of fourteen is charged with one of the enumerated crimes in this section, he or she will be automatically waived into adult court, focusing on the juvenile’s age at the time he or she allegedly committed the offense. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009).

Equal Protection.

This section does not violate the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause, because the classification barring violent youthful offenders from juvenile rehabilitation centers bears a rational relationship to an important legislative objective of excluding minors who commit certain violent acts from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. State v. Anderson, 108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1985).

Indictment.

Where an indictment, charging juvenile defendant with battery with intent to commit rape and burglary in the second degree, as drafted failed to allege an intent to commit forcible rape, the indictment did not charge any offense for which defendant could be prosecuted automatically as an adult under this section, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the district court. State v. Juhasz, 124 Idaho 851, 865 P.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1993).

Jurisdiction.

In the event a person between the ages of fourteen and eighteen is charged with or pleads guilty to any crime which is not specifically enumerated as an exception to youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) jurisdiction under this section (or which is not included in the exceptions to juvenile court jurisdiction found in§ 20-505), the minor remains under the jurisdiction of the youth rehabilitation act; however, the prosecutor, the minor or the district court itself may file a motion pursuant to§ 20-508 seeking to waive youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction. In that situation, the district court must follow the procedures set forth in§ 20-508, and hold a hearing to determine whether youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction should be waived. In the absence of the required motion and hearing, the minor remains under youth rehabilitation act jurisdiction for disposition. State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994).

Sentencing.

After considering defendant’s age and the nature and circumstance of his crime, 25-year term of confinement was not grossly disproportionate where he killed another human being by shooting the victim four times at point-blank range without any provocation, as the utter disregard for human life demonstrated in the commission of crime, coupled with the fact that it was committed against a law enforcement officer, might well have led to imposition of the death penalty or a fixed life sentence if the perpetrator had been an adult, and under circumstances, even in view of defendant’s youth, court could not say that the sentence was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense or such as to shock the conscience of reasonable people. State v. Moore, 127 Idaho 780, 906 P.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1995).

Where a juvenile has been prosecuted as an adult, the appropriate time to take into account the juvenile’s best interests with respect to sentencing is in deciding whether to sentence the defendant as an adult under subsection (3) of this section or to utilize the juvenile sentencing options presented in§ 20-520. State v. Moore, 127 Idaho 780, 906 P.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1995).

The issue of whether the district judge had authority under this section to enhance the defendant’s sentence addressed the “legality” of the actual sentence, not the underlying conviction, and was properly brought through a motion under Idaho R. Crim. P. 35. State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 978 P.2d 214 (1999). By giving the sentencing judge the option to sentence a juvenile automatically waived into adult jurisdiction as a juvenile, the statute is premised on the assumption that adult sentencing options are not only available to the judge, but are the options with which the judge should work. State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 978 P.2d 214 (1999).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to be sentenced as a juvenile where a four-year sentence was the maximum sentence defendant could have received under the juvenile corrections act, and the district court found that such a sentence was inappropriate for the crimes committed in this case. State v. Shanahan, 133 Idaho 896, 994 P.2d 1059 (Ct. App. 1999).

Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), requires a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before determining that life without parole is a proportionate sentence and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016). declared that Miller was retroactive not only for those juveniles sentenced to a mandatory of life without parole, but also for those for whom the sentencing court imposed a fixed-life sentence without considering the distinctive attributes of youth. Windom v. State, 162 Idaho 417, 398 P.3d 150 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 977, 200 L. Ed. 2d 247 (2018).

Strict Construction.

The automatic waiver provision of this section, because of the legislative intent set forth in§ 20-501 concerning the appropriate rehabilitation of the juvenile offender, is to be strictly construed. State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994).

Cited

State v. McKeown, 108 Idaho 452, 700 P.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Matthews, 108 Idaho 453, 700 P.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Lute, 108 Idaho 905, 702 P.2d 1365 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Doe, 137 Idaho 691, 52 P.3d 335 (Ct. App. 2002).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Ignoring Individualism: How a Disregard for Neuroscience and Supreme Court Precedent Makes for Bad Policy in Idaho’s Mandatory Juvenile Transfer Law, Comment. 52 Idaho L. Rev. 719 (2016).

§ 20-510. Information — Investigation — Petition.

Any peace officer, any prosecuting attorney, or any authorized representative of the board of trustees of a school district of this state, having knowledge of a juvenile who is within the purview of this act may file a petition with the court in such form as may be required by the court, except a peace officer may also issue a citation for a curfew violation pursuant to section 20-549, Idaho Code. Said individual or agency shall be responsible for providing the evidence to support the allegations made in the petition, provided this in no way shall relieve peace officers from enforcement of the law as set forth in section 31-2227, Idaho Code. The court may make a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the interests of the public or of the juvenile require that further action be taken. Such inquiry may be made through the county probation officer or such other agent or investigation officer designated by the court. Thereupon, the court may make such informal adjustment as is practicable, or dismiss the petition, or set the matter for hearing. If an informal adjustment is made, it shall provide for full or partial restitution in the manner and form prescribed by the court when the offense involves loss or damage of property of another. A probation officer shall not file a petition unless the juvenile has previously been under the jurisdiction of the court. The petition and all subsequent court documents shall be entitled “In the interest of ..., a juvenile under eighteen (18) years of age.” The petition may be made upon information and belief but it shall be made under oath. It shall set forth plainly: (1) the facts which bring the juvenile within the purview of this act; (2) the name, age, and residence of the juvenile; (3) the names and residences of his parents and spouse, if any; (4) the name and residence of his legal guardian, if there be one, or the person or persons having custody or control of the juvenile, or of the nearest known relative if no parent or guardian can be found. If any of the facts herein required are not known by the petitioner the petition shall so state.

Service of a petition upon the parents, legal guardian or person or persons having custody or control of the juvenile shall subject the parents, legal guardian or person or persons having custody or control of the juvenile to the provisions of this chapter. The petition shall inform the parents, legal guardian or other person legally obligated to care for and support the juvenile that service of the petition upon them shall make them subject to the provisions of this chapter.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 7, p. 876; am. 1977, ch. 156, § 1, p. 399; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 4, p. 371; am. 1990, ch. 355, § 3, p. 958; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 11, p. 65; am. 2000, ch. 74, § 1, p. 157; am. 2006, ch. 177, § 1, p. 544.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2006 amendment, by ch. 177, substituted “may make” for “shall make” near the beginning of the third sentence.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1807 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 11 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in the first and tenth sentences in the first paragraph was added to this section by S.L. 1963, ch. 319, § 7, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effective on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Larios, 125 Idaho 727, 874 P.2d 538 (1994); State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, 233 P.3d 1275 (2010).

Decisions Under Prior Law

Fact that information charged delinquent minors with alleged commission of felonies did not render the information bad nor deprive the court of jurisdiction. Hewlett v. Probate Court, 66 Idaho 690, 168 P.2d 77 (1946).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-511. Diversion or informal disposition of the petition.

  1. Prior to the filing of any petition under this act, the prosecuting attorney may request a preliminary inquiry from the county probation officer to determine whether the interest of the public or the juvenile requires a formal court proceeding. If court action is not required, the prosecuting attorney may utilize the diversion process and refer the case directly to the county probation officer or a community-based diversion program for informal probation and counseling. If the diversion process is utilized pursuant to this subsection, then statements made by a juvenile in a diversion proceeding shall be inadmissible at an adjudicative proceeding on the underlying charge as substantive evidence of guilt. If community service is going to be utilized pursuant to this subsection, the prosecuting attorney shall collect a fee of sixty cents (60¢) per hour for each hour of community service work the juvenile is going to perform and remit the fee to the state insurance fund for the purpose of securing worker’s compensation insurance for the juvenile offender performing community service. However, if a county is self-insured and provides worker’s compensation insurance for persons performing community service pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, then remittance to the state insurance fund is not required.
  2. After the petition has been filed and where the juvenile offender admits to the allegations contained in the petition, the court may decide to make an informal adjustment of the petition. Informal adjustment includes, but is not limited to:
    1. Reprimand of the juvenile offender;
    2. Informal supervision with the probation department;
    3. Community service work;
    4. Restitution to the victim;
    5. Participation in a community-based diversion program.
  3. The court shall dismiss the case if:
    1. An informal adjustment has been granted and the juvenile offender has satisfied the terms or conditions of the informal adjustment;
    2. The court is convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for continuing the period of informal adjustment; and
    3. It is compatible with the public interest.
  4. Information uniquely identifying the juvenile offender, the offense, and the type of program utilized shall be forwarded to the department. This information shall be maintained by the department in a statewide juvenile offender information system. Access to the information shall be controlled by the department, subject to the provisions of section 74-113, Idaho Code.
  5. Such informal adjustment of the petition shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by the Idaho juvenile rules. When an informal adjustment is made pursuant to this section and the juvenile offender is to perform community service work, the court shall assess the juvenile offender a fee of sixty cents (60¢) per hour for each hour of community service work the juvenile offender is to perform. This fee shall be remitted by the court to the state insurance fund for the purpose of securing worker’s compensation insurance for the juvenile offender performing community service. However, if a county is self-insured and provides worker’s compensation insurance for persons performing community service pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, then remittance to the state insurance fund is not required. History.

I.C.,§ 16-1807A, as added by 1984, ch. 81, § 7, p. 148; am. 1994, ch. 233, § 3, p. 724; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 12, p. 65; am. 1996, ch. 260, § 1, p. 856; am. 2009, ch. 154, § 1, p. 449; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 10, p. 39; am. 2013, ch. 222, § 1, p. 522; am. 2014, ch. 345, § 1, p. 865; am. 2015, ch. 141, § 24, p. 379; am. 2016, ch. 51, § 1, p. 147.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Idaho juvenile rules, see Volume 2 of the Idaho Court Rules.

State insurance fund,§ 72-901 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2009 amendment, by ch. 154, in subsection (1) and in the last paragraph, added the last sentence.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the end of the third sentence in subsection (1), in the introductory paragraph of subsection (2) and paragraph (2)(a), near the beginning of the first sentence of subsection (3), and in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 222, inserted the third sentence in subsection (1); and inserted the subsection (4) designation.

The 2014 amendment, by ch. 345, inserted present subsection (3) and redesignated the subsequent subsections accordingly.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 141, substituted “74-113” for “9-342” in subsection (4).

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 51, deleted “at the admission or denial hearing” preceding “the juvenile defender” in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph of subsection (2); in the introductory paragraph of subsection (3), substituted “shall dismiss” for “may dismiss” and deleted “upon an application by the juvenile offender” following “the case”; and substituted “is compatible” for “be compatible” in paragraph (3)(c).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1807A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 12 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” near the beginning of subsection (1) was added to this section by S.L. 1984, ch. 81, § 7, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Formal sentencing and informal adjustment are mutually exclusive pathways for resolving juvenile petitions. Therefore, the juvenile defendant is subject to either formal sentencing or informal adjustment. Once the magistrate court formally sentences a juvenile to two years’ probation under§ 20-520(1)(a), it has no authority to convert the judgment into an informal adjustment under this section and Idaho Juv. R. 11. State v. Doe, 153 Idaho 588, 288 P.3d 805 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

§ 20-511A. Mental health assessments and plans of treatment.

  1. A judge of any court shall order the department of health and welfare to submit appropriate mental health assessments and a plan of treatment for the court’s approval if at any stage of a proceeding under this chapter or the child protective act, chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code, a judge has reason to believe, based upon the record and proceedings of the court or upon an affidavit of a party, state or county agency or any person having physical custody of the juvenile or juvenile offender, that he or she:
    1. Is suffering a substantial increase or persistence of a serious emotional disturbance as defined in section 16-2403, Idaho Code, which impairs his or her ability to comply with the orders and directives of the court, or which presents a risk to his or her safety or well-being or the safety of others; and
    2. Such condition has not been adequately addressed with supportive services and/or corrective measures previously provided to the juvenile, or the juvenile’s needs with respect to the serious emotional disturbance are not being met or have not been met.
  2. The court may convene a screening team consisting of representatives from the department of health and welfare, county probation, local school officials, teen early intervention specialists as provided for under section 16-2404A, Idaho Code, the department of juvenile corrections and/or other agencies or persons designated by the court to review the plan of treatment and provide written recommendations to the court. Parents and guardians of the juvenile or juvenile offender, if available, shall be included in the screening team and consulted with regard to the plan of treatment.
  3. If the court, after receiving the mental health assessment and plan of treatment submitted by the department of health and welfare and any recommendations from the screening team, determines that additional information is necessary to determine whether the conditions set forth in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section are present, or to determine an appropriate plan of treatment for the juvenile or juvenile offender, the court may order an evaluation and/or recommendations for treatment to be furnished by a psychiatrist, licensed physician or licensed psychologist, with the expenses of such evaluation and/or recommendations to be borne by the department of health and welfare.
  4. If the court concludes that the conditions set forth in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section are present, the plan of treatment, as approved by the court, shall be entered into the record as an order of the court. The department of health and welfare shall provide mental health treatment as designated by the approved plan of treatment. If in-patient or residential treatment is required as part of the plan of treatment, the court shall hold a hearing on whether to order such treatment unless the hearing is waived by the juvenile or juvenile offender and his or her parents or guardians. The court may order parents, legal guardians or custodians to adhere to the treatment designated in the plan of treatment. Representatives from the department of health and welfare, county probation, local school officials, teen early intervention specialists as provided for under section 16-2404A, Idaho Code, the department of juvenile corrections and/or other agencies or persons designated by the court shall attend case review hearings as scheduled by the court. (5) All costs associated with assessment and treatment shall be the responsibility of the parents of the juvenile or juvenile offender according to their ability to pay based upon the sliding fee scale established pursuant to section 16-2433, Idaho Code. The financial obligation of the family shall be determined after consideration of all available payment and funding sources including title XIX of the social security act, as amended, all available third party sources, and parent resources according to any order for child support under chapter 10, title 32, Idaho Code. Services shall not be conditioned upon transfer of custody or parental rights.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-511A, as added by 2005, ch. 223, § 1, p. 699; am. 2007, ch. 309, § 4, p. 870; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 11, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of health and welfare,§ 56-101 et seq.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 309, in the first sentence in subsection (2) and the last sentence in subsection (4), inserted “teen early intervention specialists as provided for under section 16-2404A, Idaho Code.”

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “or juvenile offender” following “juvenile” near the end of the introductory paragraph of subsection (1), in the last sentence of subsection (2), near the middle of subsection (3), near the end of the third sentence in subsection (4), and near the middle of the first sentence in subsection (5).

Federal References.

Title XIX of the social security act, referred to in subsection (5), is codified as 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396 et seq.

§ 20-512. Summons — Notice — Custody of juvenile.

After a petition shall have been filed and after such further investigation as the court may direct, and if the matter is set for hearing, the court shall issue a summons requiring the person or persons who have custody or control of the juvenile to appear personally and bring the juvenile before the court at a time and place stated; provided, however, if hearing is to be held, it shall be held not later than fifteen (15) days after the summons is issued unless the court should order on being shown cause that the time be extended. If the person so summoned shall be other than a parent or guardian of the juvenile, then the parent or guardian or both shall also be notified of the pendency of the case and of the time and place appointed for the hearing. Notice shall be given as hereinafter provided. A subpoena may be issued requiring the appearance of any other person whose presence is required by the juvenile, his guardian or any other person who, in the opinion of the judge, is necessary. If it appears the juvenile is in such condition or surroundings that his welfare requires that he be taken into custody immediately, the judge, as provided in section 20-516, Idaho Code, may order by endorsement upon the summons that the officer serving the same shall at once take the juvenile into custody and bring him before the court.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 8, p. 876; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 13, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Parents or guardians failing or refusing to place child in school, proceedings under,§ 33-207.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1808 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Parties.

An order of court directing that delinquent child be sent to the state industrial training school is not binding on parent or guardian unless latter is made a party to the proceedings. In re Sharp, 15 Idaho 120, 96 P. 563 (1908).

Where parents were notified of proceeding and were present at hearing, the fact that they were not made parties to the original proceedings would not effect the substantial rights of the parties and would not invalidate proceedings. Hewlett v. Probate Court, 66 Idaho 690, 168 P.2d 77 (1946).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-513. Service of summons — Travel expenses.

Service of summons shall be made personally by delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person summoned; provided that if the judge is satisfied that it is impracticable to serve personally such summons or the notice provided for in the preceding section, he may order service by registered mail addressed to the last known address, or by publication thereof, or both. It shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction if service is effected at least forty-eight (48) hours before the time fixed in the summons for the hearing. When publication is used the summons shall be published in two (2) consecutive issues of a weekly newspaper printed and published in the county; such newspaper to be designated by the court in the order for publication of the summons, and such publication shall have the same force and effect as though such person had been personally served with said summons. Service of summons, process or notice required by this act shall be made by the sheriff or a probation officer upon the request of the court and a return must be made by the sheriff on the summons showing that such service has been made. The judge may authorize payment of any necessary travel expenses incurred by any person summoned or otherwise required to appear at the hearing of any case coming within the purview of this act, and such expenses when approved by the judge shall be a charge upon the county, except that not more than five (5) witnesses on behalf of any parent or guardian may be required to attend such hearing at the expense of the county. The court may summon the appearance of any person whose presence is deemed necessary as a witness or possible resource for the care and treatment of the juvenile, including persons whom the juvenile or the family wishes to have present.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 9, p. 876; am. 1976, ch. 246, § 1, p. 845; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 14, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1809 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-514. Representation at all stages of proceedings — Appointment of counsel — Waiver — Payment of cost of legal services.

  1. A juvenile who is being detained by a law enforcement officer or who is under formal charge of having committed, or who has been adjudicated for commission of, an act, omission or status that brings him under the purview of this act, is entitled:
    1. To be represented by an attorney to the same extent as an adult having his own counsel is so entitled pursuant to section 19-852, Idaho Code; and
    2. To be provided with the necessary services and facilities of representation, including investigation and other preparation.
  2. A juvenile who is entitled to be represented by an attorney under subsection (1) of this section is entitled:
    1. To be counseled and defended at all stages of the matter beginning with the earliest time and including revocation of probation or recommitment;
    2. To be represented in any appeal; and
    3. To be represented in any other post-adjudication or review proceeding that the attorney or the juvenile considers appropriate, unless the court in which the proceeding is brought determines that it is not a proceeding that a reasonable person with adequate means would be willing to bring at his own expense and is therefore a frivolous proceeding.
  3. A juvenile’s right to a benefit under subsection (1) or (2) of this section is unaffected by his having provided a similar benefit at his own expense, or by his having waived it, at an earlier stage.
  4. As early as possible in the proceedings, and in any event before the hearing of the petition on the merits, the juvenile and his parents, or guardian, shall be notified of their right to have counsel represent them. When it appears to the court that the juvenile or his parents or guardian desire counsel but are financially unable to pay for such legal services, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the juvenile and his parents or guardian; provided that in the event the court shall find that there is a conflict of interest between the interests of the juvenile and his parents or guardian, then the court shall appoint separate counsel for the juvenile, whether or not he or his parents or guardian are able to afford counsel, unless there is an intelligent waiver of the right of counsel by the juvenile, except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, and the court further determines that the best interest of the juvenile does not require the appointment of counsel. Counsel appointed under this section shall initially receive reasonable compensation from the county and the county shall have the right to be reimbursed for the cost thereof by the parents or guardian as hereafter provided in this section.
  5. Any waiver of the right to counsel by a juvenile under this act shall be made in writing, on the record and upon a finding by the court that:
    1. The juvenile has been informed of the right to counsel and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation; and
    2. The waiver is intelligently made after consideration of the totality of the circumstances including, but not limited to:
      1. The age, maturity, intelligence, education, competency and comprehension of the juvenile; (ii) The presence of the juvenile’s parents or guardian;
      2. The seriousness of the offense;
      3. The collateral consequences of adjudication of the offense; and
      4. Whether the interests of the juvenile and his parents or guardian conflict.
  6. A juvenile shall not be permitted to waive the assistance to counsel in any of the following circumstances:
    1. If the juvenile is under the age of fourteen (14) years;
    2. In sentencing proceedings in which it has been recommended that the juvenile be committed to the legal custody of the department of juvenile corrections;
    3. In proceedings in which the juvenile is being adjudicated for commission of a crime of a sexual nature;
    4. In proceedings in which the juvenile is being adjudicated for commission of a felony;
    5. In hearings upon a motion to waive jurisdiction under the juvenile corrections act pursuant to section 20-508, Idaho Code;
    6. In hearings upon a motion to examine the juvenile to determine if he is competent to proceed pursuant to section 20-519A, Idaho Code; or
    7. In recommitment proceedings.
  7. Upon the entry of an order finding the juvenile is within the purview of this act, the parents, spouse or other person liable for the support of the juvenile, or the estates of such persons, and the estate of such juvenile, may be required by the court to reimburse the county for all or a portion of the cost of those legal services rendered to the juvenile by counsel appointed pursuant to this section that are related to the finding that the juvenile is within the purview of this act, unless the court finds such persons or estate to be indigent as defined in section 19-851(c), Idaho Code, and the requirement would impose a manifest hardship on those persons responsible for the juvenile or the estates. The current inability of those persons or entities to pay the reimbursement shall not, in and of itself, restrict the court from ordering reimbursement.
  8. The prosecuting attorney of each county may, on behalf of the county, recover payment or reimbursement, as the case may be, from each person or estate who is liable for the payment or reimbursement of the cost of court appointed counsel for the juvenile, as provided in subsection (7) of this section. In the event such payment or reimbursement is not made upon demand by the prosecuting attorney, suit may be brought against such persons by the prosecuting attorney within five (5) years after the date on which such counsel was appointed by the court.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1809A, as added by 1976, ch. 246, § 2, p. 845; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 15, p. 65; am. 2013, ch. 222, § 2, p. 522.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.
Compiler’s Notes.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 222, added “Representation at all stages of proceedings” and “Waiver” in the section heading; added subsections (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6); redesignated former subsection (1) as subsection (4) and inserted “except as provided in subsection (6) of this section” in the second sentence in that subsection; redesignated former subsection (2) as subsection (7) and rewrote that subsection; and redesignated former subsection (3) as subsection (8), substituted “the juvenile, as provided in subsection (7) of this section” for “the juvenile, his parents or guardian under this section” at the end of the first sentence. Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1809A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 15 of S.L. 1995, ch 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in the introductory paragraphs in subsections (1) and (5) and in the first sentence in subsection (7) was added to this section by S.L. 2013, ch. 222, § 2, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Attorney’s Fees.

If the county is required to pay reasonable fees to court-appointed private counsel, it is also required to pay reasonable fees to legal aid attorneys who are appointed by the court in youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) proceedings. James v. Dunlap, 100 Idaho 697, 604 P.2d 711 (1979).

Right to Counsel.

The indigent youthful offender (and his parent) and the indigent adult offender are entitled to an order of the court providing legal representation. James v. Dunlap, 100 Idaho 697, 604 P.2d 711 (1979).

Where the attorney has been deprived of a realistic opportunity to assist his client, the issue is not one of ineffective counsel, it is one of counsel denied. The right to counsel is so basic to our notions of fair trial and due process that denial of the right is never treated as harmless error; such denial requires setting aside an adjudication under the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act), and a remand for further proceedings in which counsel is timely provided. Kinley v. State, 108 Idaho 862, 702 P.2d 900 (Ct. App. 1985).

Where the county public defender appointed to represent the accused had only 15 minutes to speak with the accused and go over the case, and accordingly moved for a continuance in order to prepare a defense, to which the prosecutor did not object, the magistrate’s denial of the continuance amounted to a denial of the right to counsel in violation of this section and Idaho Juvenile Rule 3 and constituted an abuse of discretion. Kinley v. State, 108 Idaho 862, 702 P.2d 900 (Ct. App. 1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

Validity and efficacy of minor’s waiver of right to counsel — Modern cases. 25 A.L.R.4th 1072.

§ 20-515. Failure to obey summons, a contempt — Warrant.

If any person summoned as herein provided shall, without reasonable cause, fail to appear, he may be proceeded against for contempt of court. In case the summons cannot be served, or the parties served fail to obey the same, or in any case when it shall be made to appear to the judge that the service will be ineffectual, or that the welfare of the juvenile offender requires that he be brought forthwith into the custody of the court, a warrant or a capias may be issued for the parent, guardian or the juvenile offender.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 10, p. 876; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 16, p. 65; am. 1997, ch. 76, § 2, p. 158; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 12, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Contempt,§ 7-601 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, twice inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the last sentence.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1810 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 16 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect October 1, 1995.

§ 20-516. Apprehension and release of juveniles — Detention.

  1. A peace officer may take a juvenile into custody, or a private citizen may detain a juvenile until the juvenile can be delivered forthwith into the custody of a peace officer, without order of the court:
    1. When he has reasonable cause to believe that the juvenile has committed an act which would be a misdemeanor or felony if committed by an adult; or
    2. When in the presence of a peace officer or private citizen the juvenile has violated any local, state or federal law or municipal ordinance; or
    3. When there are reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile has committed a status offense. Status offenses are truancy, running away from or being beyond the control of parents, guardian, or legal custodian, alcohol age violations under section 18-1502(e), Idaho Code, and curfew violations. Status offenders shall not be placed in any jail facility but instead may be placed in juvenile shelter care facilities, except in the case of runaways, when there is a specific detention request from a foreign jurisdiction to hold the juvenile pending transportation arrangements, and a peace officer may, in his discretion, notify the parent, guardian or legal custodian. In the event of an alcohol age infraction under section 18-1502(e), Idaho Code, the status offense under this section shall be in addition to the infraction.
  2. A peace officer may take a juvenile into custody upon a written order or warrant signed by a judge. The judge may issue the order or warrant after finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that the juvenile comes within the purview of this chapter. Such taking into custody shall not be deemed an arrest. Jurisdiction of the court shall attach from the time the juvenile is taken into custody. When an officer takes a juvenile into custody, he shall notify the parent, guardian or custodian of the juvenile as soon as possible. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, or unless it appears to the officer taking the juvenile into custody that it is contrary to the welfare of society or the juvenile, such juvenile shall be released to the custody of his parent or other responsible adult upon written promise, signed by such person, to bring the juvenile to the court at a stated time. Such written promise shall be submitted to the court as soon as possible. If such person shall fail to produce the juvenile as agreed, or upon notice from the court, a summons for such person may be issued by the court and a warrant may be issued for apprehension of the juvenile.
  3. A juvenile taken into custody may be fingerprinted and photographed. Any fingerprints and photographs taken shall be forwarded as provided in subsection (8) of this section. If the court finds good cause it may order any fingerprints and photographs expunged.
  4. When a juvenile is not released he shall be taken forthwith to the court or place of detention specified by the court and then not later than twenty-four (24) hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, shall be brought before the court for a detention hearing to determine where the juvenile will be placed until the next hearing. Status offenders shall not be placed in any jail facility, but instead may be placed in juvenile shelter care facilities.
    1. Parents of the juvenile;
    2. Relatives of the juvenile;
    3. Foster care;
    4. Group care;
    5. A juvenile detention center; or
    6. Community-based diversion programs.
  5. The person in charge of a detention center shall give immediate notice to the court that the juvenile is in his custody.
  6. No juvenile shall be held in detention longer than twenty-four (24) hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, unless a petition has been filed and the court has signed the detention order.
  7. As soon as a juvenile is detained by court order, his parents, guardian or legal custodian shall be informed by notice in writing on forms prescribed by the court that they may have a prompt hearing regarding release or detention.
  8. A juvenile taken into detention for an offense shall be fingerprinted and photographed. Fingerprints and photographs taken of juveniles shall be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency and filed with the bureau of criminal identification of the Idaho state police which shall create a juvenile offender fingerprint file and enter the fingerprint data into the automated fingerprint identification system. If the court finds good cause it may order the fingerprints and photographs of the juvenile offender expunged.
  9. Peace officers’ records of juveniles shall be kept separate from records of adults and shall be subject to disclosure according to chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code.

Placements may include, but are not limited to, the following:

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 11, p. 876; am. 1977, ch. 156, § 2, p. 399; am. 1982, ch. 126, § 1, p. 362; am. 1984, ch. 81, § 8, p. 148; am. 1990, ch. 213, § 11, p. 480; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 17, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 49, § 1, p. 115; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 5, p. 925; am. 1996, ch. 259, § 1, p. 854; am. 1996, ch. 379, § 2, p. 1284; am. 2000, ch. 469, § 54, p. 1450; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 13, p. 39; am. 2015, ch. 141, § 25, p. 379; am. 2016, ch. 344, § 3, p. 987.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Bureau of criminal identification,§ 67-3003.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 1996 acts which do not appear to conflict and have been compiled together.

The 1996 amendment, by ch. 259, § 1, inserted the present subsection designation “(2)”; added subsection (3); redesignated former subsections (2) through (7) as present subsections (4) through (9); and in present subsection (8), in the second sentence, deleted “at a detention facility by staff of the facility” following “taken of juveniles” and substituted “juvenile fingerprint file and enter the fingerprint data into the automated fingerprint identification system” for “juvenile file, separate and apart from any adult file, in a records system”, added the third sentence, and in the fourth sentence, substituted “good cause it may” for “a juvenile’s detention for an offense to be unlawful, the court shall” and substituted “expunged” for “taken pursuant to that detention expunged, unless the court, after a hearing, orders otherwise”.

The 1996 amendment, by ch. 379, § 2, in subdivision (1)(a), inserted “misdemeanor or” preceding “felony”.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “detention center” for “detention facility” in paragraph (4)(e) and in subsection (5); and, in subsection (8), deleted the former third and fourth sentences, which read, “The fingerprint data shall then be forwarded to the department to be maintained in a statewide juvenile offender information system. Access to the information in the juvenile offender system shall be controlled by the department, subject to the provisions of section 9-342, Idaho Code” and inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the last two sentences. The 2015 amendment, by ch. 141, substituted “chapter 1, title 74” for “chapter 3, title 9” in subsection (9).

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 344, rewrote paragraph (1)(c), which formerly read: “When there are reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile has committed a status offense. Status offenses are truancy, running away from or being beyond the control of parents, guardian, or legal custodian and curfew violations. Status offenders shall not be placed in any jail facility but instead may be placed in juvenile shelter care facilities, except in the case of runaways, when there is a specific detention request from a foreign jurisdiction to hold the juvenile pending transportation arrangements.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1811 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 17 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 111 of S.L. 1990, ch. 213 as amended by § 16 of S.L. 1991, ch. 329 provided that §§ 3 through 45 and 48 through 110 of the act should take effect July 1, 1993 and that §§ 1, 2, 46 and 47 should take effect July 1, 1990.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3-12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Ineffective assistance claims.

The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act, (§ 19-4901 et seq.) is available to juvenile as a procedural mechanism to challenge the effectiveness of trial counsel. State v. Doe, 136 Idaho 427, 34 P.3d 1110 (Ct. App. 2001).

Cited

Merritt v. State, 108 Idaho 20, 696 P.2d 871 (1985).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

§ 20-516A. Juvenile pretrial supervision — Fees.

  1. The board of county commissioners may establish a juvenile supervised pretrial release program to perform those functions as prescribed by the administrative district judge in each judicial district. The board of county commissioners may provide for juvenile supervised pretrial release services through employment of staff, contract, or any other process that will accomplish the purposes of this section. A board of county commissioners shall not be obligated to establish a juvenile supervised pretrial release program. Counties having established a juvenile supervised pretrial release program shall not be obligated to provide juvenile supervised pretrial release services beyond the funds generated by the fees collected and any additional funds that may be annually appropriated by the board of county commissioners.
  2. The court may assess a monthly juvenile pretrial supervision fee that shall be an amount no more than the maximum monthly juvenile probation supervision fee set forth in section 20-520, Idaho Code, per month, or such lesser sum as determined by the administrative judge of the judicial district, against the juvenile offender placed on pretrial supervision. The juvenile pretrial supervision fee shall be paid to the clerk of the district court who shall deposit such fee into the county juvenile probation fund, which is hereby created, in each county or, at the option of the board of county commissioners, deposited in the county justice fund to be used for county juvenile probation services. Moneys from this fee may be accumulated from year to year and shall be expended exclusively for county juvenile pretrial supervision services and related purposes.
  3. A juvenile shall not be required to pay the juvenile pretrial supervision fee authorized in subsection (2) of this section until after the entry of an order finding the juvenile offender is within the purview of this section.
  4. The court may also order the juvenile to pay additional fees to cover the actual costs of electronic monitoring, alcohol testing, or drug testing if such monitoring or testing is a condition of the juvenile’s release. Such additional fees may be paid to the clerk of the court or directly to the provider of the service. If fees are paid to the clerk of the court, the clerk of the court shall pay such fees to the county treasurer and such fees shall be used exclusively to cover the costs for which the additional fees have been ordered.
  5. Any unpaid juvenile pretrial supervision fee shall be considered a debt owed to the court and may be collected in the manner provided by law for the collection of such debts.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-516A, as added by 2020, ch. 281, § 2, p. 818.

§ 20-517. Detention accommodations.

  1. The county commissioners shall provide a detention center for the detention of juvenile offenders to be conducted by the court, or, subject to the approval of the court, by other appropriate public agency, provided that such detention shall comply with the provisions of section 20-518, Idaho Code, or within the limits of funds provided by the county commissioners.
  2. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, the county commissioners may enter into contracts or agreements with public or private agencies, individuals, other counties, or the department of juvenile corrections, which may include the expenditures of moneys outside the county boundaries. If the county in which the court is located has made an agreement with another governmental unit or agency located outside the county or the judicial district for the detention of juvenile offenders under this act, then any court in the county may order a juvenile offender detained outside of the county or outside of the judicial district in the detention center described in such agreement. All detention centers in this section shall be in compliance with section 20-518, Idaho Code, and IDAPA 05.01.02.
  3. The county wherein any court has entered an order for the detention of a juvenile offender outside of the county or outside of the judicial district as provided by subsection (2) of this section shall pay all direct and indirect costs of the detention of the juvenile offender to the governmental unit or agency owning or operating the detention center in which the juvenile offender was detained. The amount of such cost may be determined by agreement between the county wherein the court entered the order of detention and the county or governmental unit or agency owning or operating such detention center.
  4. All moneys appropriated by the state for the planning and design of regional detention centers shall be administered and distributed by the director of the department of administration for the planning and design of regional detention centers in accordance with the requirements or directives of such appropriation. In administering such moneys, the director of the department of administration shall consult with the designated county officials of every county involved or affected by a proposed regional detention center and shall abide by the decision of the designated representatives of each of the counties so involved or affected.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 12, p. 876; am. 1976, ch. 231, § 1, p. 819; am. 1978, ch. 57, § 1, p. 109; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 17, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 18, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 14, p. 39; am. 2020, ch. 82, § 13, p. 174.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “detention center” for “detention facility” and “detention centers” for “detention facilities” throughout the section; substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in subsections (1) and (2); deleted “the court may arrange for the use of private homes for such detention, subject to the supervision of the court or other agency, or may arrange with any institution or agency to receive for temporary care and custody juveniles within the jurisdiction of the court, provided said private individual or agency facilities, except relatives of the juvenile, shall meet the licensing requirements as provided in this chapter for care of juveniles. Nothing herein shall prevent a jail facility from being utilized as a detention facility if it complies with the provisions of section 20-518, Idaho Code” from the end of subsection (1); in subsection (2), inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the middle of the second sentence and added the last sentence; in subsection (3), inserted “offender” following “juvenile” three times in the first sentence and deleted “on a per day per juvenile basis” following “may be determined” near the beginning of the last sentence; and substituted “moneys” for “funds” twice in subsection (4). The 2020 amendment, by ch. 82, substituted “IDAPA 05.01.02” for “IDAPA 11.11.02” at the end of subsection (2).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1812 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 18 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in the second sentence in subsection (2) was added to this section by S.L. 1976, ch. 231, § 1, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

The bracketed insertion at the end of subsection (2) was added by the compiler. IDAPA 11.11.02 deals with the regulation of juvenile detention officers, while IDAPA 05.01.02 deals with the regulation of secure juvenile detention centers.

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1978, ch. 57 provided that the act should take effect on and after July 1, 1979.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-518. Standards for detention.

The following shall be minimum standards for the detention of juveniles provided for in section 20-517, Idaho Code:

  1. Juvenile detention centers must be so constructed and/or maintained as to keep juveniles segregated from adult offenders with there to be no contact as to sight and/or sound between the two (2) classes. Those juveniles being treated as adult offenders pursuant to section 20-508 or 20-509, Idaho Code, may be housed in a juvenile detention center if so ordered by the court. Such juveniles may be housed in the general juvenile population without sight and sound separation if it is determined by the detention administration that the safety and security of the other juveniles would not be at risk.
  2. Juvenile detention centers must provide supervision and observation of juveniles sufficient to protect the physical and mental health of the detainees.
  3. Juveniles held in detention must be provided with at least three (3) adequate and nutritional meals per day.
  4. Juveniles held in detention must have access to reading materials on a regular and systematic basis. Detained juveniles may receive books, newspapers and periodicals from any source including delivery to the detention center by family members, subject to the right of detention authorities to inspect and remove dangerous or harmful materials. Detention authorities may forbid the introduction into holding quarters of obscene books or periodicals.
  5. A visiting program shall be established in juvenile detention centers which will allow for family visits to each juvenile for at least two (2) hours each week.
  6. The juvenile detention center shall meet the standards and rules set forth in IDAPA 05.01.02 and IDAPA 11.11.02.
  7. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, the minimum standards set forth herein shall not apply to any person who attains his or her eighteenth birthday prior to beginning or while in detention. When such person attains his or her eighteenth birthday, he or she shall be transferred from juvenile detention to the county jail.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1812A, as added by 1978, ch. 57, § 2, p. 109; am. 1984, ch. 190, § 1, p. 439; am. 1989, ch. 155, § 18, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 19, p. 65; am. 2000, ch. 111, § 1, p. 248; am. 2011, ch. 7, § 1, p. 19; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 15, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2011 amendment, by ch. 7, in subsection (1), deleted “or those being treated as adult offenders under section 20-508 or 20-509, Idaho Code” following “adult offenders” in the first sentence and added the second and third sentences; substituted “juveniles” for “juvenile detainees” in subsection (2); substituted “Books, newspapers and periodicals from any source are subject” for “Detained juveniles may receive books, newspapers and periodicals from any source including delivery to the detention facilities by family members, subject” in the second sentence of subsection (4); and added subsection (6) and redesignated the subsequent subsection accordingly. The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “detention centers” for “detention facilities” and “detention center” for “detention facility” throughout the section; and, in subsection (4), rewrote the second sentence, which formerly read: “Books, newspapers and periodicals from any source are subject to the right of detention authorities to inspect and remove dangerous or harmful materials.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1812A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 19 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1978, ch. 57 provided that the act should take effect on and after July 1, 1979.

Section 21 of S.L. 1989, ch. 155 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 15, 1990.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-519. Evidentiary hearing.

If the juvenile denies the allegations in the petition, the court shall conduct a full evidentiary hearing, in the manner prescribed by the Idaho juvenile rules. The juvenile shall have the right to call witnesses on his own behalf. A record shall be made in all proceedings connected with the case and shall be preserved in the event of appeal. If at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing the court finds the juvenile to come within the purview of the act, the court shall so rule, and then shall set the matter down for sentencing, or may, in the interest of time, hold a sentencing hearing at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing if all information necessary to the disposition of the case is available at the time.

When a juvenile, other than the juvenile against whom the petition has been filed, is summoned as a witness in any hearing under this act, notwithstanding any other statutory provision, parents, a counselor, a friend or other person having a supportive relationship with the juvenile shall, if available, be permitted to remain in the courtroom at the witness stand with the juvenile during the juvenile’s testimony unless, in written findings made and entered, the court finds that the juvenile’s constitutional right to a fair trial will be unduly prejudiced.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1813, as added by 1984, ch. 81, § 9, p. 148; am. 1989, ch. 54, § 1, p. 70; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 20, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Idaho juvenile rules, see Volume 2 of the Idaho Court Rules.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1813 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 20 of S.L. 1995, ch 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The terms “the act” and “this act” in the last sentence in the first paragraph and in the first sentence in the second paragraph were added to this section by S.L. 1984, ch. 81, § 9 and S.L. 1989, ch. 54, § 1, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

The sole function of the transfer hearing is to determine whether the interests of the child and society are best served by youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) proceedings or by adult proceedings, and the hearings upon which the determination is made are to be informal in nature. State v. Christensen, 100 Idaho 631, 603 P.2d 586 (1979).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-519A. Examination of juvenile — Competency — Appointment of psychiatrists, licensed psychologists or evaluation committee — Hospitalization — Report.

  1. At any time after the filing of a delinquency petition, a party may request in writing, or the court on its own motion may order, that the juvenile be examined to determine if the juvenile is competent to proceed. The request shall state the facts in support of the request for a competency examination. If, based upon the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the court determines that there is good cause to believe that the juvenile is incompetent to proceed, then the court shall stay all proceedings and appoint at least one (1) examiner who shall be a qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, or shall order the department of health and welfare to designate, within two (2) business days, at least one (1) examiner who shall be a qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, to examine and report upon the mental condition of the juvenile. If there is reason to believe the basis for the juvenile’s incompetency is due to a developmental disability, the court shall appoint an evaluation committee as defined in section 66-402, Idaho Code, or shall order the department of health and welfare to designate, within two (2) business days, an evaluation committee, to examine and report upon the mental condition of the juvenile. The county shall be responsible for the cost of such evaluation subject to any reimbursement by the parents or other legal guardian of the juvenile. The court may order the parents or other legal guardian of the juvenile, unless indigent, to contribute to the costs of such examination in an amount to be set by the court after due notice to the parent or other legal guardian and the opportunity to be heard.
  2. A juvenile is competent to proceed if he or she has:
    1. A sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding;
    2. A rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her; and
    3. The capacity to assist in preparing his or her defense.
  3. Within three (3) business days of the appointment or designation of an examiner or an evaluation committee pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the examiner or evaluation committee shall determine the best location for the examination. The examination shall be conducted on an outpatient basis unless the court specifically finds that hospitalization or confinement of the juvenile for evaluation of competency is necessary, the juvenile is currently hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital or the juvenile is detained. The court may order the juvenile be confined to a hospital or other suitable facility, including detention as defined in section 20-502, Idaho Code, after a hearing to determine whether such confinement is necessary. Any such confinement shall be for the purpose of examination and shall be for a period not exceeding ten (10) days from the date of admission to the hospital or other suitable facility. The court, upon request, may make available to the examiner or the evaluation committee any court records relating to the juvenile. (4) The examiner or evaluation committee may employ any method of examination that is accepted by the examiner’s profession for the examination of juveniles alleged not to be competent, provided that such examination shall, at a minimum, include formal assessments of the juvenile in each of the following domains:
    1. Cognitive functioning;
    2. Adaptive functioning;
    3. Clinical functioning;
    4. Comprehension of relevant forensic issues; and
    5. Genuineness of effort.
    6. No statements of the juvenile relating to the alleged offense shall be included in the report unless such statements are relevant to the examiner or evaluation committee’s opinion regarding competency.

(5) If at any time during the examination process, the examiner has reason to believe that the juvenile’s alleged incompetency may be the result of a developmental disability and the matter has not already been referred to an evaluation committee for review, the examiner shall immediately notify the court. The court shall appoint an evaluation committee, or shall order the department of health and welfare to designate, within two (2) business days, an evaluation committee, to examine and report upon the mental condition of the juvenile. Conversely, if at any time during the examination process an evaluation committee has reason to believe the juvenile’s alleged incompetency is not the result of a developmental disability, the evaluation committee shall immediately notify the court so the examination can be completed by a qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist as set forth in subsection (1) of this section. The new examination and report shall be conducted within the time frames set forth in subsection (6) of this section.

(6) The examiner or evaluation committee shall submit a written report to the court within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appointment or designation. The report shall address the factors set forth in section 20-519B, Idaho Code. If the examiner or evaluation committee determines that the juvenile is incompetent to proceed, the report shall also include the following:

(a) The nature of the mental disease, defect, disability or other condition including chronological age that is the cause of the juvenile’s incompetency;

(b) The juvenile’s prognosis;

(c) Whether the examiner or evaluation committee believes the juvenile may be restored to competency and an estimated time period in which competence could be restored with treatment;

(d) If the juvenile may be restored to competency, the recommendations for restoration shall be the least restrictive alternative that is consistent with public safety;

(e) If the juvenile is not competent and there is no substantial probability that the juvenile can be restored to competency within six (6) months, a recommendation as to whether the juvenile meets the criteria set forth in section 16-2418, 66-329(11) or 66-406(11), Idaho Code, and identification of any other services recommended for the juvenile that are the least restrictive, community based and consistent with public safety; and

(7) The court, upon a finding of good cause, may alter the time frames for the designation of an examiner or evaluation committee, the completion of the examination or the completion of the report but shall ensure that the examination and competency determination occur as expeditiously as possible. The court may, upon a finding of good cause, vacate or continue the ninety (90) day restoration review hearing set forth in section 20-519C, Idaho Code.

(8) The report of the examination shall be filed in triplicate with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the juvenile.

(9) If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the juvenile to participate, the report shall so state and shall include, if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the juvenile was the result of age, mental disease, defect or disability and whether the examiner recommends that a second examiner be appointed to examine the juvenile.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-519A, as added by 2011, ch. 178, § 1, p. 505.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of health and welfare,§ 56-1001 et seq.

§ 20-519B. Determination of competency of juvenile to proceed — Suspension of proceedings — Restoration order — Commitment.

  1. The court shall hold a hearing no later than thirty (30) days after the report of the examiner or evaluation committee is filed pursuant to the provisions of section 20-519A, Idaho Code. At the hearing, the court may receive as evidence the report of the examiner or evaluation committee. In considering whether the juvenile is competent to proceed, the court shall consider the following:
    1. A description of the nature, content, extent and results of the examination and any test that was conducted;
    2. The juvenile’s capacity to understand the charges or allegations against the juvenile;
    3. The juvenile’s capacity to understand the range and nature of possible penalties that may be imposed in the proceedings;
    4. The juvenile’s capacity to understand the adversarial nature of the legal process;
    5. The juvenile’s capacity to disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue;
    6. Whether the juvenile is able to display appropriate courtroom behavior;
    7. Whether the juvenile is able to receive accurate impressions of the facts about which he or she is examined, is able to appreciate the meaning of an oath to tell the truth and has an understanding of the potential consequences of not telling the truth;
    8. The examiner’s opinion as to the competency of the juvenile as defined in subsection (2) of section 20-519A, Idaho Code.
  2. The weight to be given to each of the factors listed in subsection (1) of this section is discretionary with the court and a determination that the juvenile is or is not competent to proceed may be based on any one (1) or a combination of such factors, which shall be recited in the court’s order regarding competency.
  3. If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the juvenile contests the findings of the report of the examiner or evaluation committee, the court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If a party contests the findings of such report, they shall have the right to cross-examine the qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist who prepared and submitted the report and to offer evidence upon this issue. A finding of incompetency shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
  4. If the court finds the juvenile is competent to proceed, the proceedings shall continue without delay.
  5. If the court initially finds that the juvenile is incompetent and there is not a substantial probability that the juvenile will be restored to competency within six (6) months, the court may stay or dismiss the matter. In determining whether to stay or dismiss the matter, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the alleged offense, resources available to the juvenile and any issues of public safety. Prior to a stay or dismissal of the matter, the court may convene a screening team consisting of representatives from the department of health and welfare, county probation, local school officials, and/or other agencies or persons designated by the court to develop a treatment plan for the juvenile. In developing such treatment plan, the recommendations contained in the competency examination shall be considered to ensure necessary services for the juvenile are put into place. Parents and guardians of the juvenile, if available, shall be included in the screening team and consulted with regard to the plan of treatment. If appropriate, the court may hold a hearing to determine whether proceedings under chapter 24, title 16, or chapter 3 or 4, title 66, Idaho Code, should be instituted. If such proceedings are initiated, the juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over said proceedings. (6) If the court determines that the juvenile is incompetent to proceed, but may be restored to competency within six (6) months, the court shall order a plan of treatment to be developed by the department of health and welfare for the juvenile to undergo efforts at restoration to competency. The court may:
    1. Convene a restoration treatment team to make recommendations on a plan of treatment;
    2. Order any agencies that have treated or had custody of the juvenile to release any pertinent information or records to the department of health and welfare to be used in the development and implementation of the juvenile’s restoration plan;
    3. Order the department of health and welfare, county probation, school officials and the department of juvenile corrections to release all pertinent information regarding the juvenile to the court, the department of health and welfare and any restoration treatment team to be used in the development and implementation of the juvenile’s restoration plan;
    4. Require the parents or guardians of the juvenile, and where appropriate require the juvenile, to allow information pertinent to the restoration treatment plan be released to the department of health and welfare, the court and any restoration treatment team.

(7) If the court determines that the juvenile is incompetent to proceed, but may be restored to competency, the court may order a juvenile to participate in the competency restoration program as developed by the department of health and welfare. The purpose of the treatment or training is the restoration of the juvenile’s competency to proceed. In determining the type and location of the competency restoration program and in designating a restoration provider, the department of health and welfare shall identify the least restrictive alternative that is consistent with public safety and consider whether inpatient treatment, residential care or secure confinement is necessary for program participation.

(a) An inpatient or residential or secure detention facility is only appropriate if all available less restrictive alternatives in community settings which would offer an opportunity for improvement of the juvenile’s condition are inappropriate. If the department of health and welfare’s plan of restoration requires the juvenile be placed in an inpatient, residential or secure detention facility, the court shall hold a hearing on whether to order such placement unless the hearing is waived by the juvenile and the juvenile’s parents or guardians. Juveniles charged with only a status offense or multiple status offenses shall not be held in a secure confinement or detention facility for restoration purposes.

(b) The department of health and welfare is responsible for determining the competency restoration program and services. All costs associated with restoration services shall be the responsibility of the parents of the juvenile according to their ability to pay based upon the sliding fee scale established pursuant to section 16-2433, Idaho Code. The financial obligation of the parents shall be determined after consideration of all available payment and funding sources including title XIX of the social security act, as amended, all available third party sources including funding available to the juvenile from other programs, grants or agencies and parent resources according to any order for child support under chapter 10, title 32, Idaho Code. Services shall not be conditioned upon transfer of custody of parental rights. (8) If a juvenile is determined to be incompetent to proceed but may be restored to competency, the court shall retain jurisdiction of the juvenile for up to six (6) months. A restoration order issued pursuant to this section is valid for six (6) months from the date of the initial finding of incompetency or until one (1) of the following, whichever occurs first:

(a) The restoration program submits a report that the juvenile has become competent to proceed or that there is no substantial probability that the juvenile will regain competency within the period the order is valid;

(b) The charges are dismissed; or

(c) The juvenile reaches twenty-one (21) years of age.

(9) The court may extend the restoration order beyond six (6) months upon a showing of good cause. If the juvenile reaches twenty-one (21) years of age, the matter shall be dismissed. If the court concludes that there is no substantial probability that the juvenile will regain competency within the period the order is valid, then the provisions of subsection (5) of this section shall apply.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-519B, as added by 2011, ch. 178, § 2, p. 505.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of health and welfare,§ 56-101 et seq.

Federal References.

Title XIX of the social security act, referred to in paragraph (7)(b), is codified as 42 USCS § 1396 et seq.

§ 20-519C. Restoration reports — Hearings.

  1. A report shall be filed by the restoration provider at least every ninety (90) days or whenever the restoration provider believes the juvenile is competent to proceed or whenever the restoration provider believes there is no substantial probability that the juvenile will regain competency before the expiration of the order to participate in a competency restoration program or fourteen (14) days before expiration of the restoration order.
  2. The court shall hold a review hearing regarding the progress towards competency at least every ninety (90) days while the juvenile participates in a restoration program. The court may consider the restoration provider’s report at the review hearing to assess the juvenile’s progress and to determine whether restoration services should continue.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-519C, as added by 2011, ch. 178, § 3, p. 505.

§ 20-519D. Admissibility of statements by examined or treated juvenile.

A statement made by a juvenile subject to a competency examination or restoration treatment pursuant to section 20-519A or 20-519B, Idaho Code, for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence in any delinquency or criminal proceeding against the juvenile on any issue other than the juvenile’s ability to assist counsel at trial or to form any specific intent which is an element of the crime charged, except that such statements of a juvenile to the examiner, evaluation committee or restoration provider as are relevant for impeachment purposes may be received subject to the usual rules of evidence governing matters of impeachment.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-519D, as added by 2011, ch. 178, § 4, p. 505.

§ 20-520. Sentencing.

  1. Upon the entry of an order finding the juvenile offender is within the purview of the act, the court shall then hold a sentencing hearing in the manner prescribed by the Idaho juvenile rules to determine the sentence that will promote accountability, competency development and community protection. Prior to the entry of an order disposing of the case, other than an order of discharge or dismissal, the court may request and, if requested, shall receive a report containing the results of an inquiry into the home environment, past history, competency development, prevention or out of home placement services provided, and the social, physical and mental condition of the juvenile offender. The court shall not consider or review the report prior to the entry of an order of adjudication. Upon presentation and consideration of the report by the court, the court may proceed to sentence the juvenile offender as follows:
    1. Place the juvenile offender on formal probation for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the date of the order, except the court may place a juvenile offender on formal probation for a period not to exceed the juvenile offender’s twenty-first birthday if the court finds that the juvenile offender has committed a crime of a sexual nature. If a juvenile offender is committed to the Idaho department of juvenile corrections pursuant to paragraph (s) of this subsection, the court may place the juvenile offender on probation from the date of sentencing up to three (3) years past the date of release from custody or the juvenile offender’s twenty-first birthday, whichever occurs first; provided the court shall conduct a review hearing within thirty (30) days following release of the juvenile offender from the department of juvenile corrections in order to determine the conditions and term of such probation;
    2. Sentence the juvenile offender to detention pursuant to this act for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days for each act, omission or status which is prohibited by the federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance by reason of minority only. The sentence shall not be executed unless the act, omission or status is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(x), or the court finds that the juvenile offender has violated the court’s decree imposing the sentence as provided in this subsection.
    3. Commit the juvenile offender to a period of detention, pursuant to this act, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days for each unlawful or criminal act the juvenile offender is found to have committed, if the unlawful or criminal act would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, or where the juvenile offender has been adjudicated as an habitual status offender;
    4. If the juvenile offender has committed an unlawful or criminal act which would be a felony if committed by an adult, the court may commit the juvenile offender to detention for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days for each unlawful or criminal act;
    5. Whenever a court commits a juvenile offender to a period of detention, the juvenile detention center shall notify the school district where the detention center is located. No juvenile offender who is found to come within the purview of the act for the commission of a status offense shall be sentenced to detention in a jail facility unless an adjudication has been made that the juvenile offender is an habitual status offender;
    6. Commit the juvenile offender to detention and suspend the sentence on specific probationary conditions;
    7. The court may suspend or restrict the juvenile offender’s driving privileges for such periods of time as the court deems necessary, and the court may take possession of the juvenile offender’s driver’s license. The juvenile offender may request restricted driving privileges during a period of suspension, which the court may allow if the juvenile offender shows by a preponderance of evidence that driving privileges are necessary for his employment or for family health needs;
    8. The court may order that the juvenile offender be examined or treated by a physician, surgeon, psychiatrist or psychologist, or that he receive other special care, or that he submit to an alcohol or drug evaluation, if needed, and for such purposes may place the juvenile offender in a hospital or other suitable facility;
    9. The court may order that the county probation office authorize a comprehensive substance abuse assessment of the juvenile offender. After receiving the comprehensive substance abuse assessment, and upon a finding by the court that treatment will provide a cost-effective means of achieving the sentencing goals of accountability, competency development and community protection, the court may order that the juvenile offender receive immediate treatment for substance abuse in keeping with a plan of treatment approved by the court. The initial cost of the assessment and treatment shall be borne by the department of juvenile corrections with funds allocated to the county probation office. The director of the department of juvenile corrections may promulgate rules consistent with this paragraph to establish a schedule of fees to be charged to parents by the county probation office for such services based upon the cost of the services and the ability of parents to pay;
    10. In support of an order under the provisions of this section, the court may make an additional order setting forth reasonable conditions to be complied with by the parents, the juvenile offender, his legal guardian or custodian, or any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings, including, but not limited to, restrictions on visitation by the parents or one (1) parent, restrictions on the juvenile offender’s associates, occupation and other activities, and requirements to be observed by the parents, guardian or custodian;
    11. The court may make any other reasonable order which is in the best interest of the juvenile offender or is required for the protection of the public, except that no person under the age of eighteen (18) years may be committed to jail, prison or a secure facility which does not meet the standards set forth in section 20-518, Idaho Code, unless jurisdiction over the individual is in the process of being waived or has been waived pursuant to section 20-508 or 20-509, Idaho Code. The court may combine several of the above-listed modes of disposition where they are compatible;
    12. An order under the provisions of this section for probation or placement of a juvenile offender with an individual or an agency may provide a schedule for review of the case by the court;
    13. Order the proceeding expanded or altered to include consideration of the cause pursuant to chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code;
    14. Order the case and all documents and records connected therewith transferred to the magistrate division of the district court for the county where the juvenile offender and/or parents reside if different than the county where the juvenile offender was charged and found to have committed the unlawful or criminal act, for the entry of a dispositional order;
    15. Order such other terms, conditions, care or treatment as appears to the court will best serve the interests of the juvenile offender and the community;
    16. The court shall assess a twenty dollar ($20.00) detention/probation training academy fee against the juvenile offender for every petition filed where there has been an adjudication that the juvenile offender is within the purview of this chapter. All moneys raised pursuant to this paragraph shall be transmitted by the court for deposit in the juvenile corrections fund which is created in section 20-542, Idaho Code;
    17. Additionally, the court shall assess a fee of sixty cents (60¢) per hour of community service against the juvenile offender for every petition filed where there has been an adjudication that the juvenile offender is within the purview of this chapter and the court is ordering community service. Such fee is to be remitted by the court to the state insurance fund for purposes of providing worker’s compensation insurance for persons performing community service pursuant to this chapter. However, if a county is self-insured and provides worker’s compensation insurance for persons performing community service pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, then remittance to the state insurance fund is not required;
    18. Additionally, the court may assess a monthly probation supervision fee that shall be an amount not more than the maximum monthly misdemeanor probation supervision fee set forth in section 31-3201D, Idaho Code, per month, or such lesser sum as determined by the administrative judge of the judicial district, against the juvenile offender placed on probation. The amount of the monthly probation supervision fee shall be paid to the clerk of the district court who shall deposit such fee into the county juvenile probation fund, which is hereby created, in each county or, at the option of the board of county commissioners, deposited in the county justice fund to be used for county juvenile probation services. Moneys from this fee may be accumulated from year to year and shall be expended exclusively for county juvenile probation services and related purposes;
    19. Commit the juvenile offender to the legal custody of the department of juvenile corrections for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed the juvenile offender’s nineteenth birthday, unless the custody review board determines that extended time in custody is necessary to address competency development, accountability, and community protection; provided however, that no juvenile offender shall remain in the custody of the department beyond the juvenile offender’s twenty-first birthday. The department shall adopt rules implementing the custody review board and operations and procedures of such board. Juvenile offenders convicted as adults and placed in the dual custody of the department of juvenile corrections and the state board of correction under section 19-2601A, Idaho Code, are under the retained jurisdiction of the court and are not within the purview of the custody review board;
    20. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a court may not commit a juvenile offender under the age of ten (10) years to a period of detention or to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections for placement in secure confinement.
  2. When an order is entered pursuant to this section, the juvenile offender shall be transported to the facility or program so designated by the court or the department, as applicable, by the sheriff of the county where the juvenile offender resides or is committed, or by an appointed agent. When committing a juvenile offender to the department, or another entity, the court shall at once forward to the department or entity a certified copy of the order of commitment.
  3. Unless the court determines that an order of restitution would be inappropriate or undesirable, it shall order the juvenile offender or his parents or both to pay restitution to or make whole any victim who suffers an economic loss as a result of the juvenile offender’s conduct in accordance with the standards and requirements of sections 19-5304 and 19-5305, Idaho Code. The amount of restitution which may be ordered by the court shall not be subject to the limitations of section 6-210, Idaho Code. Court-ordered restitution shall be paid prior to any other court-ordered payments unless the court specifically orders otherwise. The clerk of the district court, with the approval of the administrative district judge, may use the procedures set forth in section 19-4708, Idaho Code, for the collection of the restitution.
  4. The court may order the juvenile offender’s parents or custodian to pay the charges imposed by community programs ordered by the court for the juvenile offender, or the juvenile offender’s parents or custodian.
  5. Any parent, legal guardian or custodian violating any order of the court entered against the person under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to contempt proceedings under the provisions of chapter 6, title 7, Idaho Code.
  6. The clerk of the district court, with the approval of the administrative district judge, may use the procedures set forth in section 19-4708, Idaho Code, for the collection of other debts owed to the court by the juvenile offender.

If the court, after notice and hearing, finds that a juvenile offender has violated the court’s decree imposing the sentence under circumstances that bring the violation under the valid court order exception of the federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act of 1974, as amended, the court may commit the juvenile offender to detention for the period of detention previously imposed at sentencing;

History.

I.C.,§ 20-520, as added by 1996, ch. 301, § 2, p. 989; am. 1996, ch. 301, § 3, p. 989; am. 1996, ch. 359, § 2, p. 1207; am. 1997, ch. 76, § 1, p. 158; am. 1997, ch. 262, § 1, p. 746; am. 1999, ch. 155, § 1, p. 431; am. 2000, ch. 329, § 1, p. 1106; am. 2000, ch. 466, § 1, p. 1444; am. 2001, ch. 15, § 1, p. 17; am. 2002, ch. 73, § 1, p. 160; am. 2002, ch. 97, § 1, p. 265; am. 2002, ch. 309, § 1, p. 880; am. 2007, ch. 308, § 1, p. 862; am. 2008, ch. 41, § 1, p. 96; am. 2009, ch. 102, § 3, p. 312; am. 2009, ch. 154, § 2, p. 449; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 16, p. 39; am. 2012, ch. 257, § 6, p. 709; am. 2015, ch. 87, § 1, p. 213; am. 2015, ch. 113, § 8, p. 281; am. 2019, ch. 219, § 2, p. 662.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Idaho juvenile rules, see Volume 2 of the Idaho Court Rules.

State insurance fund,§ 72-901 et seq.

Prior Laws.
Amendments.

This section was amended by two 1997 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 1997 amendment, by ch. 76, § 1, added a new subsection (1)(b) and renumbered former subsections (1)(b)-(1)(q) as present subsections (1)(c)-(1)(r), respectively, and in new subsection (1)(m) substituted “than the” for “thanthe” following “or parents reside if different”.

The 1997 amendment, by ch. 262, § 1, deleted a former subsection (f) which read “Commit the juvenile to the legal custody of the department of juvenile corrections for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed the juvenile’s twenty first birthday, unless extended jurisdiction is necessary to complete the competency development and accountability goals of the department.”; renumbered former subsections (1)(g)-(1)(p), respectively, as present subsections (1)(f)-(1)(o), respectively; added a new subsection (1)(p) and in new subsection (1)(m) substituted “than the” for “thanthe” following “or parents reside if different”.

This section was amended by two 2000 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2000 amendment, by ch. 329, § 1, in subdivision (1)(a), added “, except the court may place a juvenile on formal probation for a period not to exceed the juvenile’s twenty-first birthday if the court finds that the juvenile has committed a crime of a sexual nature”.

The 2000 amendment, by ch. 466, § 1, in subsection (3), added the last sentence.

This section was amended by two 2002 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2002 amendment, by ch. 73, § 1, added subsection (4) and redesignated former subsection (4) as present subsection (5).

The 2002 amendment, by ch. 97, § 1, substituted “the court may request and, if requested,” for “the court shall request and” preceding “shall receive a report containing” in subsection (1).

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 308, added subsection (1)(i) and made related redesignations.

The 2008 amendment, by ch. 41, substituted “unless the custody review board determines that extended time in custody is necessary” for “unless, in the opinion of the custody review board, extended time in custody is necessary” in subsection (1)(r).

This section was amended by two 2009 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2009 amendment, by ch. 102, added the last sentence in subsection (3).

The 2009 amendment, by ch. 154, added the last sentence in subsection (1)(q).

This section was amended by two 2012 acts which appear to be compatible and have been combined together.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offender” for “juvenile” and “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” throughout the section; in subsection (1), substituted “period of detention the juvenile detention center” for “period of detention it” and substituted “detention center” for “detention facility” in the first sentence of paragraph (e), and, in paragraph (i), substituted “county probation office authorize” for “department of health and welfare conduct” in the first sentence, substituted “department of juvenile corrections with funds allocated to the county probation office” for “department of health and welfare” at the end of the third sentence, substituted “juvenile corrections” for “health and welfare,” and substituted “county probation office” for “department of health and welfare” in the last sentence. The 2012 amendment, by ch. 257, deleted “legal guardian” following “parents” twice in subsection (4).

This section was amended by two 2015 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 87, added the last sentence in paragraph (1)(a).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 113, added the last sentence in paragraph (1)(r).

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 219, in subsection (1), substituted “paragraph (s) of this subsection” for “paragraph (r) of this subsection” near the beginning of the last sentence in paragraph (a), inserted present paragraph (r), and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs; and added subsection (6).

Federal References.

The Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, referred to in the second paragraph in subsection (1)(b) of this section, is compiled as 5 U.S.C., § 5108; 18 U.S.C., §§ 4351 to 4353, 5031 to 5042; 42 U.S.C., §§ 3701, 3723, 3733, 3758, 3772 to 3774, 3811 to 3814; 3821, 3883, 3888, 5601 to 5603, 5611 to 5619, 5631 to 5638, 5651 to 5662, 5671, 5672, 5701, 5702, 5711 to 5716, 5731, 5751.

Compiler’s Notes.

The terms “the act’” and “this act” in the introductory paragraph in subsection (1), in the first paragraph in paragraph (1)(b), and in paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(e) were added to this section by S.L. 1996, ch. 301, § 2 and S.L. 1997, ch. 76, § 1, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 2002, ch. 309 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2003.

CASE NOTES

Alternate Sentencing.

Formal sentencing and informal adjustment are mutually exclusive pathways for resolving juvenile petitions. Therefore, the juvenile defendant is subject to either formal sentencing or informal adjustment. Once the magistrate court formally sentences a juvenile to two years’ probation under paragraph (1)(a), it has no authority to convert the judgment into an informal adjustment under§ 20-511 and Idaho Juv. R. 11. State v. Doe, 153 Idaho 588, 288 P.3d 805 (2012).

Best Interests of Defendant.

Where defendant did not contend there was any error in court’s decision to sentence him as an adult, nor did the record on appeal indicate that he ever requested that the court impose sentence pursuant to the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act of 1995), no error was shown with respect to the district court’s consideration of the best interests of defendant. State v. Moore, 127 Idaho 780, 906 P.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1995).

Probation Conditions.

When appellants’ minor daughter was placed on probation for petit theft, the magistrate court violated appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights by requiring appellants to submit to random urine testing for drugs; while the magistrate had the authority to impose the probation condition under subsection (1)(j) of this section, requiring appellants to undergo urinalysis testing constituted a search that was presumptively invalid without a warrant. State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, 233 P.3d 1275 (2010).

Restitution Awards.

Because a restitution award is imposed solely as a result of misbehavior on the part of the juvenile, and is a part of the state court’s sentence in every case, except “where inappropriate or undesirable,” application of the juvenile corrections act against a parent is more a device to provide the victim with an opportunity to recover any economic loss, than a means to punish or rehabilitate the parent. Mabey v. Ellis, 224 Bankr. 786 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998).

Where plaintiff’s damages exceeded the limits under state law for recovery from a juvenile’s parents in a civil action, the liability of the parents for payment of a restitution award did not constitute a fine, penalty, or forfeiture. Mabey v. Ellis, 224 Bankr. 786 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998).

The court has discretion in determining the amount of the obligation owed a victim, and a restitution order need not be considered compensation for actual pecuniary loss simply because it matches the victim’s loss. Mabey v. Ellis, 224 Bankr. 786 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution for lost earnings in the amount of $3,300 to the father and $2,700 to the mother of a four-year-old child, upon whom a juvenile defendant was found guilty of committing lewd conduct, where the awards were based on each parent’s gross earnings per day and days missed from work for matters related to the criminal action. State v. Doe (In re Doe), 140 Idaho 873, 103 P.3d 967 (Ct. App. 2004).

Cited

State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 814 P.2d 401 (1991); State v. Shanahan, 133 Idaho 896, 994 P.2d 1059 (Ct. App. 1999).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

§ 20-520A. Dismiss and discharge upon completion of authorized drug, mental health or other authorized problem solving court program.

If a juvenile offender has successfully completed and graduated from an authorized juvenile drug court program, juvenile mental health court program or other authorized problem solving court program and, during any period of probation that may have been served following such graduation, has satisfied the terms or conditions of the probation, the court may, if convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for continuing the period of probation, and if it be compatible with the public interest, terminate the juvenile’s sentence, set aside the adjudication of the juvenile offender finding the juvenile offender within the purview of the juvenile corrections act, and finally dismiss the case and discharge the juvenile offender from the jurisdiction of the court. This section shall apply to the cases in which juvenile offenders have been found within the purview of the juvenile corrections act before the effective date of this section, as well as to cases that arise on or after the effective date of this section.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-520A, as added by 2014, ch. 345, § 2, p. 865.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Drug and mental health courts,§ 19-5601 et seq.

Juvenile corrections act,§ 20-501 et seq.

Compiler’s Notes.

The phrase “the effective date of this section” in the last sentence refers to the effective date of S.L. 2014, chapter 345, which was effective July 1, 2014.

§ 20-521. Habitual status offender.

  1. Any juvenile offender who has been adjudicated for commission of two (2) status offenses within twelve (12) months may be charged, petitioned and adjudicated as an habitual status offender for the third status offense committed within that twelve (12) month period.
  2. The court may utilize any dispositional alternative for an habitual status offender that is detailed in section 20-520, Idaho Code, except that the juvenile offender shall not be placed in an Idaho juvenile correctional center.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1814A, as added by 1984, ch. 81, § 11, p. 148; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 22, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 17, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, added the subsection designations; inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the beginning of subsection (1); and substituted “juvenile offender shall not be placed in an Idaho juvenile correctional center” for “juvenile shall not be placed in the Idaho juvenile corrections center” at the end of subsection (2).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1814A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 22 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

§ 20-522. Jurisdiction over parents.

Whenever a juvenile offender is found to come under the purview of this chapter, the court shall have jurisdiction and authority to have the juvenile offender and the juvenile offender’s parent(s), legal guardian or custodian sign a probationary contract with the court containing terms and conditions that the juvenile offender and the juvenile offender’s parent(s), legal guardian or custodian must adhere to as a condition of the juvenile offender’s probation. The probationary contract may provide that upon a violation or breach of the terms and conditions of the probationary contract, the juvenile offender’s parent(s), legal guardian or custodian shall be liable to the court for a specific monetary sum not in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the breach of contract. All such moneys shall be payable to the court and shall be in addition to any other fines, penalties or other sanctions provided by law. Any moneys received by the court pursuant to this section shall be paid into the juvenile corrections fund created in section 20-542, Idaho Code. In lieu of or in addition to a monetary payment, the court may order that the parent(s), legal guardian or custodian attend parenting classes or undergo other treatment or counseling. Any person violating any order of the court entered under the provisions of this section shall be subject to contempt proceedings under the provisions of chapter 6, title 7, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1814B, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 6, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 23, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 7, p. 925; am. 1996, ch. 359, § 3, p. 1207; am. 2001, ch. 15, § 2, p. 17; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 18, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offender” for “juvenile” and “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” in the first and second sentences.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1814B and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 23 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3-12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Parental Contract.

Appellate court reversed an order that required a father to sign a parental contract that required that he submit to random drug tests in conjunction with his son’s probation. While the court had authority to order such a contract, it was not valid where the court indicated that the father had to sign the contract or be held in jail. State v. Watkins, 143 Idaho 217, 141 P.3d 1086 (2006).

Probation Conditions.

When appellants’ minor daughter was placed on probation for petit theft, the magistrate had the authority under subsection (1)(i) of§ 20-520 to impose probation conditions requiring appellants to submit to random urine testing for drugs. However, such testing would constitute an invalid search without a warrant. State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, 233 P.3d 1275 (2010).

§ 20-523. Screening teams to provide assistance to court.

In order to provide assistance to a court in making a disposition pursuant to section 20-520, Idaho Code, a screening team composed of a county probation officer or other investigation officer or agency designated by the court may meet and provide a written recommendation delineating options to the court for disposition of the case pursuant to this chapter.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1814C, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 7, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 24, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 8, p. 925.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1814C and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 24 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3-12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

§ 20-524. Support of juvenile or juvenile offender — Reimbursement for costs incurred.

  1. Whenever a juvenile or juvenile offender is placed by the court in custody other than that of his or her parents or custodian, after due notice to the parent or other persons legally obligated to care for and support the juvenile or juvenile offender, and after a hearing, the court may order and decree that the parent or other legally obligated person shall pay in such a manner as the court may direct a reasonable sum that will cover in whole or in part the support and treatment of the juvenile or juvenile offender. If the parent or other legally obligated person willfully fails or refuses to pay such sum, the court may proceed against him for contempt, or the order may be filed and shall have the effect of a civil judgment.
  2. If the juvenile or juvenile offender is detained, the court may order that the parents of the juvenile or juvenile offender or other legally obligated person contribute to the costs of detention in an amount to be set by the court. The order may be filed and shall have the effect of a civil judgment. It is the intent of the legislature that foster parents or a parent or legal guardian receiving public assistance relating to that juvenile or juvenile offender should not benefit from the continued receipt of payments or public assistance from any state or federal agency while the juvenile or juvenile offender is detained. The department of health and welfare is directed to promulgate a rule implementing this intent.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1815, as added by 1984, ch. 81, § 12, p. 148; am. 1986, ch. 222, § 9, p. 593; am. 1990, ch. 361, § 5, p. 973; am. 1992, ch. 194, § 1, p. 603; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 25, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 354, § 1, p. 1198; am. 1997, ch. 82, § 2, p. 192; am. 1998, ch. 292, § 4, p. 928; am. 2004, ch. 50, § 3, p. 236; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 19, p. 39; am. 2012, ch. 257, § 7, p. 709.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Contempt,§ 7-601 et seq.

Department of health and welfare,§ 56-1001 et seq.

Execution of judgments,§ 11-101 et eq.

Amendments.

This section was amended by two 2012 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, added “or juvenile offender” at the end of the section heading; inserted “or juvenile offender” following “juvenile” throughout the section; and deleted former subsections (3) and (4), which read: “(3) All child support orders shall notify the obligor that the order will be enforced by income withholding pursuant to chapter 12, title 32, Idaho Code. (4) Failure to include these provisions does not affect the validity of the support order or decree. The court shall require that the social security numbers of both the obligor and obligee be included in the order or decree.” The 2012 amendment, by ch. 257, deleted “guardian” following “parent” or “parents” twice in subsection (1) and substituted “that the parents of the juvenile or other legally obligated person” for “parents or other legal guardian of the juvenile” in subsection (2).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1815 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 25 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Debt Creation.

In order for the Idaho department of juvenile correction (IDJC) to create an actionable debt for reimbursement of its services: (1) IDJC must give notice to a juvenile’s parent of the parent’s obligation to pay; (2) IDJC must, after notice to the parent, initiate a court hearing to determine a reasonable sum the parent shall pay; and (3) a court must order and decree that the parent pay that sum. Action Collection Serv. v. Black, 163 Idaho 268, 411 P.3d 312 (Ct. App. 2017).

Although a mother had notice of the Idaho department of juvenile correction’s (IDJC) claim to payment for support and treatment of her son while in IDJC custody, IDJC never initiated a hearing under this section and a court never ordered the mother to pay a reasonable sum. As a result, the IDJC never validly created a debt that could be collected under§ 67-2358. Action Collection Serv. v. Black, 163 Idaho 268, 411 P.3d 312 (Ct. App. 2017).

Notice.

Magistrate’s order that defendant juvenile’s mother reimburse county for the costs of defendant’s detention was reversed on appeal, because meaningful, constitutional notice was not provided to defendant’s mother. While it appeared that defendant’s mother had notice of her son’s disposition hearing, nothing in the record indicated that she had prior notice that detention costs could be imposed upon her at that hearing. In re Doe, 147 Idaho 542, 211 P.3d 787 (Ct. App. 2009).

Due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard before a court may enter an order for payment of detention costs under subsection (2). In re Doe, 147 Idaho 542, 211 P.3d 787 (Ct. App. 2009).

§ 20-524A. Department’s payment of detention costs.

If the juvenile offender is committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections pursuant to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the department shall reimburse the county for the period of time in excess of five (5) calendar days during which the juvenile offender is housed at a detention center. This time period shall begin to run on the first business day the department receives a copy of the order of commitment, executed by the court. Orders received by the department after 3 o’clock p.m., mountain standard time, on a business day, will be considered to have been received the next business day. Facsimile transmissions of the order are acceptable.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-524A, as added by 2004, ch. 50, § 4, p. 236; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 20, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “Department’s” at the beginning of the section heading; and, in the first sentence, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the beginning and near the end and substituted “detention center” for “detention facility” at the end.

§ 20-525. Records — Privileged information.

  1. The court shall maintain records of all cases brought before it. In proceedings under this act the following juvenile courtroom proceedings and records shall be open to the public: all proceedings against a juvenile offender of the age of fourteen (14) years or older and who is petitioned or charged with an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult including the court docket, petitions, complaints, information, arraignments, trials, sentencings, probation violation hearings and dispositions, motions and other papers filed in any case in any district; transcripts of testimony taken by the court; and findings, verdicts, judgments, orders, decrees and other papers filed in proceedings before the court of any district.
  2. Juvenile courtroom proceedings and records shall remain confidential when the court and the prosecutor agree extraordinary circumstances exist that justify records of a juvenile offender of the age of fourteen (14) years or older and who is petitioned or charged with an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult should remain confidential because it is in the best interest of the juvenile offender.
  3. In proceedings under this act the following records and court proceedings of juvenile offenders of the age of thirteen (13) years or younger shall not be withheld from public inspection, except on court order, which order must be made in writing in each case: the court docket, petitions, complaints, information, arraignments, trials, sentencings, probation violation hearings and dispositions, motions and other papers filed in any case in any district; transcripts of testimony taken by the court; and findings, verdicts, judgments, orders, decrees and other papers filed in proceedings before the court of any district.
  4. These records shall be open to inspection according to chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code. All information obtained and social records prepared in the discharge of official duty by an employee of the court shall be subject to disclosure according to chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code.
  5. The victim of misconduct shall always be entitled to the name of the juvenile offender involved, the name of the juvenile offender’s parents or guardian, and their addresses and telephone numbers, if available in the records of the court.
  6. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this act and notwithstanding any order entered pursuant hereto, nothing in this act shall prohibit the exchange of records created pursuant to this act between prosecuting attorneys or courts in this state.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 16, p. 876; am. 1977, ch. 156, § 4, p. 399; am. 1990, ch. 213, § 12, p. 480; 1990, ch. 245, § 2, p. 696; am. 1994, ch. 326, § 2, p. 1046; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 26, p. 65; am. 1997, ch. 258, § 1, p. 732; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 21, p. 39; am. 2015, ch. 141, § 26, p. 379.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in subsection (1), twice in subsection (2), and in subsection (5); substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in subsection (3); and substituted “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” in subsection (5).

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 141, substituted “chapter 1, title 74” for “chapter 2, title 59” twice in subsection (4).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1816 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 26 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” near the beginning of subsection (1), near the beginning of subsection (3), and three times in subsection (6) was added to this section by S.L. 1963, chapter 319, S.L. 1997, chapter 258, and S.L. 1990, chapter 245, § 1, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 111 of S.L. 1990, ch. 213 as amended by § 16 of S.L. 1991, ch. 329 provided that §§ 3 through 45 and 48 through 110 of the act should take effect July 1, 1993 and that §§ 1, 2, 46 and 47 should take effect July 1, 1990.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Juvenile Records.

This section does not preclude access to the juvenile records and reports of an adult being sentenced on criminal charges, when the defendant has become an adult. State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

§ 20-525A. Expungement of record — Hearing — Findings necessary — Special index — Effect of order.

  1. Any person who has been adjudicated in a case under this act and found to be within the purview of the act for having committed a felony offense or having been committed to the department of juvenile corrections may, after the expiration of five (5) years from the date of termination of the continuing jurisdiction of the court, or, in case the juvenile offender was committed to the juvenile correctional center, five (5) years from the date of his release from the juvenile correctional center, or after reaching age eighteen (18) years, whichever occurs last, petition the court for the expungement of his record. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the pendency of the petition and of the date of the hearing. The prosecuting attorney and any other person who may have relevant information about the petitioner may testify at the hearing.
  2. Any person who has been adjudicated in a case under this act and found to be within the purview of the act for having committed misdemeanor or status offenses only and not having been committed to the department of juvenile corrections may, after the expiration of one (1) year from the date of termination of the continuing jurisdiction of the court or after reaching age eighteen (18) years, whichever occurs later, petition the court for the expungement of his record. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the pendency of the petition and the date of the hearing. The prosecuting attorney and any other person who may have relevant information about the petitioner may testify at the hearing.
  3. In any case where the prosecuting attorney has elected to utilize the diversion process or the court orders an informal adjustment pursuant to section 20-511, Idaho Code, the person may, after the expiration of one (1) year from the date of termination of the continuing jurisdiction of the court or after reaching age eighteen (18) years, whichever occurs later, petition the court for the expungement of his record. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the pendency of the petition and the date of the hearing. The prosecuting attorney and any other person who may have relevant information about the petitioner may testify at the hearing.
  4. The court may not expunge a conviction for any of the following crimes from a juvenile offender’s record:
    1. Administering poison with intent to kill (18-4014, Idaho Code);
    2. Aggravated battery (18-907, Idaho Code);
    3. Armed robbery (chapter 65, title 18, Idaho Code);
    4. Arson (chapter 8, title 18, Idaho Code);
    5. Assault with intent to commit a serious felony (18-909, Idaho Code);
    6. Assault with intent to murder (18-4015, Idaho Code);
    7. Assault or battery upon certain personnel, felony (18-915, Idaho Code);
    8. Forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object (18-6608, Idaho Code);
    9. Infamous crime against nature, committed by force or violence (18-6605, Idaho Code);
    10. Injury to child, felony (18-1501, Idaho Code);
    11. Kidnapping (18-4501, Idaho Code);
    12. Murder of any degree (18-4001 and 18-4003, Idaho Code);
    13. Rape, excluding statutory rape (18-6101, Idaho Code);
    14. Ritualized abuse of a child (18-1506A, Idaho Code);
    15. Sexual exploitation of a child (18-1507, Idaho Code);
    16. Unlawful use of destructive device or bomb (18-3320, Idaho Code);
    17. Voluntary manslaughter (18-4006 1., Idaho Code);
    18. A violation of the provisions of section 37-2732(a)(1)(A), (B) or (C), Idaho Code, when the violation occurred on or within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property of any public or private primary or secondary school, or in those portions of any building, park, stadium or other structure or grounds which were, at the time of the violation, being used for an activity sponsored by or through such a school;
    19. A violation of the provisions of section 37-2732B, Idaho Code, related to drug trafficking or manufacturing of illegal drugs.
  5. If the court finds after hearing that the petitioner has not been adjudicated as a juvenile offender for any of the crimes identified in subsection (4) of this section, and has not been convicted of a felony, or of a misdemeanor wherein violence toward another person was attempted or committed since the termination of the court’s jurisdiction or his release from the juvenile correctional center, and that no proceeding involving such felony or misdemeanor is pending or being instituted against him, and if the court further finds to its satisfaction that the petitioner has been held accountable, is developing life skills necessary to become a contributing member of the community and that the expungement of the petitioner’s record will not compromise public safety, it shall order all records in the petitioner’s case in the custody of the court and all such records, including law enforcement investigatory reports and fingerprint records, in the custody of any other agency or official sealed; and shall further order all references to said adjudication, diversion or informal adjustment removed from all indices and from all other records available to the public. However, a special index of the expungement proceedings and records shall be kept by the court ordering expungement, which index shall not be available to the public and shall be revealed only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Copies of the order shall be sent to each agency or official named in the order. Upon the entry of the order the proceedings in the petitioner’s case shall be deemed never to have occurred and the petitioner may properly reply accordingly upon any inquiry in the matter. Inspection of the records may thereafter be permitted only by the court upon petition by the person who is the subject of the records, or by any other court of competent jurisdiction, and only to persons named in the petition.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1618A, as added by 1969, ch. 299, § 1, p. 899; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 277, § 9, p. 925; am. 1999, ch. 248, § 1, p. 636; am. 2004, ch. 160, § 1, p. 525; am. 2005, ch. 92, § 1, p. 311; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 22, p. 39; am. 2016, ch. 296, § 14, p. 828.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, in the first sentence of subsection (1), substituted “juvenile offender was committed to the juvenile correctional center” for “juvenile was committed to the juvenile corrections center”, and substituted “juvenile correctional center” for “juvenile corrections center”; substituted “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” in the introductory paragraph of subsection (4); and, in the first sentence of subsection (5), inserted “offender” following “juvenile” and substituted “juvenile correctional center” for “juvenile corrections center.”

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 296, deleted “and 18-6108” following “18-6101” in paragraph (4)(m).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1816A and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 9 of S.L. 1995 ch. 277, effective October 1, 1995.

The terms “this act” and “the act” near the beginning of subsections (1) and (2) were added to this section by S.L. 1969, chapter 299 and S.L. 2004, chapter 160, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.

Effective Dates.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 provided that §§ 1, 3 to 12 should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Constitutionality.

This section, which permits defendants to petition for expungement of records only from proceedings adjudicated under the purview of the juvenile corrections act,§ 20-501 et seq., does not violate the United States or Idaho Constitutions, because the legislature has a rational basis to assign exclusive procedures and expungement benefits to proceedings within the purview of that act. State v. Doe, 155 Idaho 99, 305 P.3d 543 (Ct. App. 2013).

Scope of Power.

This section does not provide any court with the power to expunge the records for a conviction unassociated with the juvenile corrections act,§ 20-501 et seq. State v. Doe, 155 Idaho 99, 305 P.3d 543 (Ct. App. 2013).

Violation Found.

While a license renewal form required a home health care consultant to reveal criminal convictions whether sealed, expunged, or otherwise violated§ 20-525A, this violation did not constitute an invasion of the consultant’s privacy. Jensen v. State, 139 Idaho 57, 72 P.3d 897 (2003).

Cited

United States v. Bays, 589 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

Am. Jur. 2d.
ALR.

Expungement of juvenile court records. 71 A.L.R.3d 753.

§ 20-526. Encouraging violations.

Any person who by any act or neglect encourages, aids or causes a juvenile to come within the purview or jurisdiction of this chapter, or who after notice that the driving privileges of the juvenile offender have been suspended or restricted under the provisions of this chapter knowingly permits or encourages said juvenile offender to operate a motor vehicle in violation of such suspension or restriction, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The court may impose conditions upon any person found guilty under this section, and so long as such person shall comply therewith to the satisfaction of the court, the sentence imposed may be suspended.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 17, p. 876; am. 1977, ch. 156, § 5, p. 399; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 27, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 23, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Punishment for misdemeanor not otherwise specified,§ 18-113.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, twice inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the first sentence.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1817 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 27 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that this section as amended and redesignated should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Information.

It is not necessary in information brought under this section to allege specific acts performed by child nor facts constituting child a “delinquent.” Information is sufficient if it appears therefrom that defendant has performed acts which encourage, cause or contribute to the delinquency of such child. State v. Drury, 25 Idaho 787, 139 P. 1129 (1914).

Misdemeanor.

When any person by act encourages, causes, or contributes to the delinquency of a child, he is guilty of a misdemeanor, whether such child has been declared a delinquent or not. State v. Drury, 25 Idaho 787, 139 P. 1129 (1914).

Cited

State v. Herr, 97 Idaho 783, 554 P.2d 961 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

Mens rea or guilty intent as necessary element of offense of contributing to delinquency or dependency of minor. 31 A.L.R.3d 848.

Giving, selling, or prescribing dangerous drugs as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 36 A.L.R.3d 1292.

§ 20-527. School trustees to report truants.

When a juvenile of compulsory school age is expelled or is reported to have repeatedly violated the attendance regulations of the school district in which the juvenile is enrolled, pursuant to section 33-206, Idaho Code, the prosecuting attorney may file a petition under this act. The court shall cause an investigation to be made and upon receipt of the written report of the investigation, the court may proceed under this act or the child protective act with respect to the juvenile and may proceed against the juvenile’s parent(s), guardian or custodian under this act pursuant to section 33-207, Idaho Code.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 18, p. 876; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 28, p. 65; am. 2002, ch. 348, § 3, p. 994.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Child protective act,§ 16-1601 et seq.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1818 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 28 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” throughout this section was added to this section by S.L. 1963, chapter 319 and S.L. 1995, chapter 44, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

§ 20-528. Appeals.

All orders or final judgments made by any court in matters affecting a juvenile offender within the purview of this act may be appealed by the juvenile offender or the state. A decision by the court pursuant to section 20-508, Idaho Code, not to waive jurisdiction under this act over the juvenile offender may be appealed by the state. Appeals shall be reviewed as provided by the appellate rules of the supreme court of Idaho, except no undertaking shall be required. Upon filing of the notice of appeal, the district court shall take jurisdiction of the case and if the juvenile offender is in detention shall promptly hold a hearing after the filing of a request to determine whether the juvenile offender shall remain in detention.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 19, p. 876; am. 1971, ch. 170, § 3, p. 805; am. 1980, ch. 134, § 1, p. 293; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 29, p. 65; am. 1997, ch. 54, § 1, p. 92; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 24, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Idaho Appellate Rules, see Volume 2 of the Idaho Court Rules.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” throughout the section.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1819 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 29 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in the first and second sentences was added to this section by S.L. 1963, chapter 319 and S.L. 1995, chapter 44, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Section 2 of S.L. 1980, ch. 134 declared an emergency. Approved March 24, 1980.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Failure to appeal. Necessity for appeal.

Appealable Orders.

Although this section provides that “all orders” may be appealed, a youth subject to proceedings under the youth rehabilitation act [now juvenile corrections act] did not have the right to appeal from orders of the magistrate that he appear for hearings or that he meet with youth probation officers prior to the court’s entry of a decree disposing of the proceeding, for these orders did not affect any of the child’s substantial interests. In re Doe, 98 Idaho 40, 557 P.2d 634 (1976).

An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction constitutes a final order of the magistrate’s division of the district court sitting as a juvenile court. State v. Harwood, 98 Idaho 793, 572 P.2d 1228 (1977).

There is a right to appeal under this section from an order granting motion to suppress evidence. State’s appeals are not limited to decisions not to waive jurisdiction. State v. Doe, 130 Idaho 811, 948 P.2d 166 (Ct. App. 1997).

Failure to Appeal.

Since this section requires an immediate appeal to a district court of a magistrate’s waiver of juvenile jurisdiction over a minor, and since there are no contrary precedents under the youth rehabilitation act (now juvenile corrections act) upon which a defendant could have relied in making his decision not to appeal the waiver in the district court, failure by the defendant to challenge the magistrate’s ruling in district court precluded consideration of that ruling in the supreme court. State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 587 P.2d 305 (1978).

Necessity for Appeal.

The magistrate’s order waiving its jurisdiction over a juvenile is a final order of the magistrate’s court and must be appealed to the district court prior to further proceedings in district court in the matter. State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 587 P.2d 305 (1978).

Order Withholding Judgment.

Where magistrate’s order withholding judgment and placing youth on probation for a six months’ period was based upon the finding that the youth had committed the criminal offense of statutory rape, the order withholding judgment was appealable, even though it was not a final disposition of the matter. In re Doe, 98 Idaho 40, 557 P.2d 634 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 20-529. Appointment of county probation officers.

The courts in the several counties of this state shall enter into a contract or agreement for probation services to the counties or, if the court deems local probation services are preferable, may appoint one (1) or more persons to serve as probation officers at the expense of the county with the concurrence of the county commissioners. County juvenile probation services may be paid for from funds generated by the fees collected pursuant to the provisions of section 20-520, Idaho Code, and any additional funds that may be annually appropriated by the board of county commissioners.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 20, p. 876; am. 1976, ch. 272, § 1, p. 920; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 30, p. 65; am. 2019, ch. 219, § 3, p. 662.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 219, added the last sentence.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1820 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 30 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-530. Reassessment of committed juvenile offenders — Records — Failure to reassess.

  1. The department shall make periodic reassessments of all juvenile offenders committed to it for the purpose of determining whether existing orders and dispositions in individual cases should be modified or continued in force. Assessments may be made as frequently as the department considers desirable and shall be made with respect to every juvenile offender at intervals not exceeding one (1) year. Reports of periodic reassessments made pursuant to this section shall be filed with the court from which the juvenile offender was committed.
  2. The department shall keep written records of assessments, prognosis, and all orders concerning disposition or treatment of every juvenile offender committed to it.
  3. Failure of the department to assess a committed juvenile offender or to reassess him within one (1) year of a previous assessment shall not of itself entitle the juvenile offender to discharge from the control of the department but shall entitle him to petition the committing court for an order of discharge and the court shall discharge him unless the department satisfies the court of the need for further control.

History.

1963, ch. 319, § 23, p. 876; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 32, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 25, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” throughout the section and substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in the section heading and near the beginning of subsection (1).

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1823 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 32 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-531. Secure facilities.

  1. The department shall maintain and operate secure facilities for the custody of juvenile offenders who pose a danger of serious bodily harm to others or who have engaged in a pattern of serious criminal offenses, and who cannot be controlled in a less secure setting.
  2. The department shall provide or make available to juvenile offenders in secure facilities, instruction appropriate to the age, needs and range of abilities of the juvenile offenders. An assessment shall be made of each juvenile offender at the secure facility to determine abilities, learning disabilities, interests, attitudes and similar matters. Training in the development of competency and life skills designed to assist the juvenile offender in operating effectively within and becoming a contributing member of the community shall be provided. Prevocational education shall be provided to acquaint juvenile offenders with vocations, their requirements and opportunities.
  3. The department shall place juvenile offenders committed to the department in a state or privately operated secure facility that provides humane care and developmental opportunities for the juvenile offender while promoting accountability and community protection.
  4. The department shall adopt standards, policies and procedures for the regulation and operation of secure facilities. Such standards, policies and procedures shall not be inconsistent with law. Policies shall be promulgated as rules in compliance with chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1827, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 34, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 26, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, in subsection (2), substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” at the end of the first sentence and inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the second and third sentences.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1827 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 34 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

For state regulations on the operation of a secured detention center, see IDAPA 05.01.02.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-532. Term of commitment — Review after commitment.

A juvenile offender committed to a secure facility shall remain until the juvenile offender reaches nineteen (19) years of age, is retained for extended custody pursuant to section 20-520(1)(s), Idaho Code, or is released or discharged. A juvenile offender committed to a secure facility shall appear before the department within ninety (90) days after commitment for review of treatment plans.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1828, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 35, p. 65; am. 2002, ch. 309, § 2, p. 880; am. 2007, ch. 308, § 4, p. 862; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 27, p. 39; am. 2019, ch. 219, § 4, p. 662.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 308, updated the section reference.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “juvenile” preceding “offender” near the middle of the first sentence.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 219, substituted “section 20-520(1)(s), Idaho Code” for “section 20-520(1)(r), Idaho Code” near the middle of the section.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1828 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 35 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1994.

Section 3 of S.L. 2002, ch. 309 provided that the act should take effect on and after January 1, 2003.

§ 20-532A. Order for apprehension and detention of escapees from custody.

Upon a finding by the Idaho department of juvenile corrections that a juvenile offender in the custody of the department has escaped, as described in section 18-2505(2) or 18-2506(2), Idaho Code, a written order signed by the director or his designee shall be a sufficient order for detention for any law enforcement officer to apprehend and take into custody such person. It is hereby made the duty of all sheriffs, police, constables, parole officers, prison officials and other peace officers to execute such order. From and after the issuance of the detention order and until taken into custody, the escapee shall be considered a fugitive from justice. Upon apprehension, the juvenile offender shall be detained in the closest available detention center and shall thereafter be transported by the department as soon as possible or, at the discretion of the detaining authority, the juvenile offender may be transported directly by that authority to the department’s nearest regional facility.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-532A, as added by 2000, ch. 105, § 1, p. 234; am. 2004, ch. 50, § 5, p. 236; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 28, p. 39; am. 2018, ch. 158, § 1, p. 315.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the middle of the first sentence and twice in the last sentence.

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 158, substituted “as described in section 18-2505(2) or 18-2506(2), Idaho Code” for “from custody” in the first sentence of the section.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Idaho Law Review.

Idaho Law Review. — Collateral Damage in Idaho: A Proposal to Strengthen the Effect of the Juvenile Corrections Act, Jenny V. Gallegos, 55 Idaho L. Rev. 379 (2019).

§ 20-533. Release from custody of the department.

  1. The department shall determine an appropriate date for release of the juvenile offender from the custody of the department, based upon guidelines established by the department. The department shall review and update policy guidelines annually.
  2. Juvenile offenders may be released to their own home, to a residential community-based program, to a nonresidential community-based treatment program, to an approved independent living setting, or to other appropriate residences, but shall remain on probation until the probation is terminated by the court. Following the release of a juvenile offender, the court may conduct a hearing to review the juvenile offender’s conditions of probation and determine whether existing conditions should be amended or eliminated or additional conditions imposed.
  3. County probation officers shall enforce probation conditions and supervise juvenile offenders while on probation. As authorized by court order, probation officers may establish additional reasonable conditions of probation with which the juvenile offender must comply. The juvenile offender may move for a hearing before the court to contest any conditions imposed by the probation officer. If the probation officer establishes additional conditions of probation, the probation officer shall advise the juvenile offender at the time such additional conditions are imposed of the juvenile offender’s right to move the court for a hearing to contest those conditions.
  4. When the department is considering release of a juvenile offender committed to the department for confinement, the department shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the county from which the juvenile offender was committed to confinement, the judge whose order caused the juvenile offender to be committed to confinement and the victims of the juvenile offender’s unlawful conduct. Notice shall also be given to the same parties upon the actual release of the juvenile offender from the department’s custody.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1829, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 36, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 29, p. 39; am. 2018, ch. 157, § 1, p. 314.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, in subsection (2), substituted “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” in the last sentence; and, in subsection (3), inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the beginning of the third sentence and near the middle of the last sentence and substituted “juvenile offender’s” for “juvenile’s” near the end of the last sentence.

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 157, added the last sentence in subsection (4).

Compiler’s Notes.
Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Doe (In re Doe), 147 Idaho 243, 207 P.3d 974 (2009); State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, 233 P.3d 1275 (2010).

§ 20-533A. Compliance with open meetings law — Executive sessions authorized — Confidentiality of records.

  1. All meetings of the custody review board of the Idaho department of juvenile corrections shall be held in accordance with the open meetings law as provided in chapter 2, title 74, Idaho Code, provided however:
    1. Deliberations and decisions of the board concerning whether or not a juvenile offender shall be held in custody of the Idaho department of juvenile corrections for an extended period of time past his or her nineteenth birthday may be made in executive session; and
    2. Votes of individual members in custody decisions shall not be made public, provided that the board shall maintain a record of the votes of the individual members as required in subsection (2) of this section.
  2. A written record of the vote to retain the juvenile offender in custody for an extended period of time by each board member in each case reviewed by that member shall be produced by the board. Such record shall be kept confidential and privileged from disclosure, provided the record shall be made available upon request to the governor, the chairman of the senate judiciary and rules committee and the chairman of the house of representatives judiciary, rules and administration committee for all lawful purposes.
  3. A board member or employee of the Idaho department of juvenile corrections who distributes to any person not specifically listed in this section any hearing information or records that are legally required to be kept confidential shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
  4. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent any person from obtaining the results of any action by the board or director of the Idaho department of juvenile corrections without reference to the manner in which any member voted, and the board shall make such information public unless doing so would violate public records laws.
  5. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the director, designated staff of the director, the governor, the chairman of the senate judiciary and rules committee or the chairman of the house of representatives judiciary, rules and administration committee from attending any meeting, including any executive session, of the custody review board.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-533A, as added by 2003, ch. 164, § 2, p. 462; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 30, p. 39; am. 2017, ch. 58, § 10, p. 91; am. 2017, ch. 87, § 1, p. 234.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Penalty for misdemeanor when not otherwise provided,§ 18-113.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in paragraph (1)(a) and in the first sentence of subsection (2). This section was amended by two 2017 acts which appear to be compatible and have been compiled together.

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 58, substituted “open meetings law” for “open meeting law” in the section heading; and substituted “open meetings law as provided in chapter 2, title 74, Idaho Code” for “open meeting law as provided in chapter 23, title 67, Idaho Code” near the end of the introductory paragraph in subsection (1).

The 2017 amendment, by ch. 87, substituted “open meetings law” for “open meeting law” in the section heading; and substituted “open meetings law as provided in chapter 2, title 74, Idaho Code” for “open meeting law as provided in chapter 23, title 67, Idaho Code” near the end of the introductory paragraph in subsection (1).

§ 20-534. Magistrate court probation sections to furnish information to department.

Probation sections of the magistrate division of the district court shall render full and complete cooperation to the department in supplying the department with all pertinent information relating to juvenile offenders committed to the department. This information may include, without limitation, prior criminal history, social history, psychological evaluations, and identifying information specified by the department.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1836, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 38, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1836 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 38 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-535. Review of programs for juvenile offenders — Certification.

The department shall annually review all state operated or state contracted programs which provide services to juvenile offenders and certify compliance with standards provided by the department. Written reviews shall be provided to the managers of those programs. Based upon policies established by the department, those programs which are unable or unwilling to comply with approved standards may not be certified. Any person owning or operating a private facility who willfully fails to comply with the standards established by the department shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1837, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 39, p. 65; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 31, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Penalty for misdemeanor when not otherwise provided,§ 18-113.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in the section heading.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1837 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 39 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

For state regulations on the operation of a secured detention center, see IDAPA 05.01.02.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-536. Contracts with private providers of services for juvenile offenders — Certification required.

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the department from contracting with private providers or other entities for the provision of care, treatment and supervision of juvenile offenders committed to the custody of the department, if these programs are certified as in compliance with department standards within six (6) months after commencing operation.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1838, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 40, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1838 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 40 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

For state regulations on the operation of a secured detention center, see IDAPA 05.01.02.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-537. Program records as property of department — Control of records.

All records maintained by providers under contract with the department to provide services to juvenile offenders are the property of the department and shall be returned to it when the juvenile offenders are terminated from the provider’s programs. The department shall maintain an accurate audit trail of information provided to other programs, providers or agencies regarding juvenile offenders under its jurisdiction.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1839, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 41, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1839 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 41 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-538. Restitution to victims of juvenile offenders — Duties of department.

  1. The department or county probation shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that restitution is made to the victim of the juvenile offender. Restitution may be made through the employment of juvenile offenders in work programs or directly to the person; provided, however, that reimbursement to the victim is conditional upon the juvenile offender’s involvement in such program.
  2. Restitution may be made a condition of probation.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1840, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 42, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1840 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 42 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

A.L.R.

§ 20-539. Creation of fund.

There is hereby created in the state treasury a fund known as the “juvenile corrections victim restitution fund,” which shall be administered by the department. Moneys in the fund shall consist of wage payments made to juvenile offenders in work programs, appropriations and moneys received by the department from whatever source. Moneys in the fund shall be utilized to provide full or partial restitution to victims of the juvenile offender’s delinquent behavior.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1841, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 43, p. 65; am. 2001, ch. 14, § 1, p. 16.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1841 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 43 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-539A. Distribution and reporting requirements for state, other public and private contract facilities.

Each facility housing juvenile offenders in department custody, whether a state, other public or private contract facility, shall comply with the following requirements for disbursement and reporting:

  1. State facilities, upon receiving any moneys credited to a juvenile offender in its custody, shall deposit the funds in the juvenile corrections victim restitution fund pursuant to section 20-539, Idaho Code.
  2. Other public or private contract facilities housing juvenile offenders in department custody, upon receiving any moneys credited to or earned by a juvenile offender at the facility, shall directly distribute the moneys on or before the first day of each calendar quarter to the county court that committed the juvenile offender to department custody. Upon remitting moneys to a county on behalf of a juvenile offender, the facility shall report the direct distribution to the department for inclusion in the department’s records.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-539A, as added by 2001, ch. 14, § 2, p. 16; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 32, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the beginning of subsection (1); and, in subsection (2), substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” near the beginning of the first sentence and inserted “offender” following “juvenile” near the middle and near the end of the first sentence.

§ 20-540. Reports by department.

When a juvenile offender has been committed to the department pursuant to this chapter, the department shall supply a report of the juvenile offender’s educational and developmental progress to the committing court as often as the court deems necessary in its order of commitment, but not less frequently than every three (3) months.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1844, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 45, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1844 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 45 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-541. Special commissioner — Duties.

The court shall be authorized to appoint a special commissioner to assist in the conduct of proceedings under this chapter. In any case in which the court refers a petition to the commissioner, the commissioner shall promptly cause the matter to be investigated and on the basis thereof shall either recommend dismissal of the petition or hold a hearing as provided in this act and make recommendations to the court regarding the disposition of the matter. Such commissioner shall be paid for services rendered on order of the court from county funds in such amount as is determined by the court.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1847, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 47, p. 65.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1847 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 47 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” near the end of the second sentence was added to this section by S.L. 1989, chapter 155, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-542. Juvenile corrections fund — Creation.

There is hereby created in the state treasury, the juvenile corrections fund. Moneys in the fund shall be utilized by the department for construction and administration of facilities under the jurisdiction of the department of juvenile corrections, for assistance to a county or series of counties in constructing, contracting for or administering detention facilities for juvenile offenders, to coordinate training for juvenile detention officers and/or juvenile probation officers, and for alternative programs designed to help juveniles avoid the traditional juvenile corrections system. All moneys in the fund may be expended only pursuant to appropriation by the legislature.

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1849, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 48, p. 65; am. 1999, ch. 155, § 2, p. 431; am. 2001, ch. 15, § 3, p. 17; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 33, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” near the middle of the second sentence.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1849 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 48 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

Effective Dates.

Section 65 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 provided that the amendment and redesignation of this section should be in full force and effect on October 1, 1995.

§ 20-543. Juvenile Corrections Center. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised 1963, ch. 168, § 1, p. 486; am. 1974, ch. 183, § 1, p. 1480; am. 1990, ch. 367, § 1, p. 1004; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 50, p. 65, was repealed by S.L. 1997, ch. 83, § 4, effective July 1, 1997.

§ 20-544. Body politic and corporate

Powers. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which was formerly compiled as§ 33-3502, which comprised 1963, ch. 168, § 2, p. 486; am. 1974, ch. 23, § 11, p. 633; am. 1974, § 183, § 2, p. 1480; am. 1990, ch. 367, § 2, p. 1004; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 51, p. 65, effective October 1, 1995, was repealed by § 10 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277, effective October 1, 1995.

§ 20-545. Powers of department of juvenile corrections. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised I.C.,§ 33-3503, as added by 1990, ch. 367, § 3, p. 1004; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 52, was repealed by S.L. 1997, ch. 83, § 4, effective July 1, 1997.

§ 20-546. Powers of director of department of juvenile corrections. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised 1963, ch. 168, § 5, p. 486; am. 1974, ch. 23, § 12, p. 633; am. 1987, ch. 223, § 1, p. 475; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 53, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 11, p. 925, was repealed by S.L. 1997, ch. 83, § 4, effective July 1, 1997.

§ 20-547. Construction of act — Citation of act — Other code references construed.

This act shall be liberally construed to the end that the legislative policy expressed herein is achieved. This act may be cited as the “Juvenile Corrections Act of 1995.”

History.

I.C.,§ 16-1848, as added by 1989, ch. 155, § 9, p. 371; am. and redesig. 1995, ch. 44, § 54, p. 65; am. 1995, ch. 277, § 12, p. 925; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 34, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, deleted the former last sentence, which read: “On and after the effective date of this act, any citation in the Idaho Code to chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, shall be understood and construed as a citation to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, unless the context otherwise requires.”

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was formerly compiled as§ 16-1848 and was amended and redesignated as this section by § 54 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44, effective October 1, 1995.

The term “this act” in both sentences was added to this section by S.L. 1989, chapter 155 and S.L. 1995, chapter 44, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

Effective Dates.

Section 64 of S.L. 1995, ch. 44 declared an emergency and provided that §§ 4, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 should be in full force and effect on and after passage and approval. Approved March 6, 1995; section 65 provided that all the remaining sections of the act should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.

Section 13 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 declared an emergency and provided that § 2 of the act should be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval. Approved March 21, 1995.

Section 14 of S.L. 1995, ch. 277 read: “All remaining sections of this act shall be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1995.”

§ 20-548. Compensation — Amount — Crediting account of juvenile offender — Juvenile offenders not employees.

Each juvenile offender who is engaged in productive work under the jurisdiction of the director of the department of juvenile corrections may receive for this work such compensation as the director shall determine, to be paid out of any funds available in the department of juvenile corrections competency development account. After payment of restitution pursuant to section 20-538, Idaho Code, compensation shall be credited to the account of the juvenile offender to be used for payment of fines, reimbursement to the department of juvenile corrections for expenses directly related to that juvenile offender, and upon certain circumstances, payment to the juvenile offender upon release from the department of juvenile corrections.

No juvenile offender compensated under this act shall be considered an employee of the state or the department of juvenile corrections, nor shall any juvenile offender come within any of the provisions of the worker’s compensation law, or be entitled to any benefits thereunder whether on behalf of himself or any other person.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-548, as added by 1997, ch. 265, § 1, p. 755; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 35, p. 39.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of juvenile corrections,§ 20-503.

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, substituted “juvenile offenders” for “juveniles” in the section heading and inserted “offender” following “juvenile” in the section heading, four times in the first paragraph, and twice in the last paragraph.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” near the beginning of the second paragraph was added to this section by S.L. 1997, ch. 265, § 1, but since the revision of former chapter 18, title 16, Idaho Code, by S.L. 1995, chapter 44, the reference seems to be to chapter 5, title 20, Idaho Code, the Juvenile Corrections Act.

§ 20-549. Curfew violations — Citation — Notification.

Violation by a juvenile offender of a curfew established by a municipal or county ordinance shall constitute an infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150). Fines shall be deposited in the county juvenile justice fund of the county where the violation occurred, or if such a fund has not been established, then in the current county expense account for juvenile corrections purposes in the county where the violation occurred. Detention of a juvenile offender in a county jail or detention center for violation of a curfew is prohibited, unless the juvenile offender is an habitual status offender as defined in section 20-521, Idaho Code.

Any peace officer may issue a citation for violation of a curfew that shall thereafter proceed under the juvenile corrections act in the same manner as though the violation was charged by a petition. Citations shall be issued on the Idaho uniform citation form. The peace officer issuing a curfew citation may detain the violator and at the time the citation is issued shall make a reasonable effort to obtain the endorsement of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian on the citation. If the endorsement of a parent or legal guardian cannot be obtained with the exercise of reasonable diligence, a copy of the citation shall be hand delivered or mailed to the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian by a peace officer at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the juvenile’s appearance. The citation shall provide a date certain for the appearance before a magistrate of the juvenile and parent or legal guardian.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-549, as added by 1998, ch. 391, § 1, p. 1196; am. 2000, ch. 74, § 2, p. 157; am. 2012, ch. 19, § 36, p. 39; am. 2015, ch. 197, § 1, p. 607.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2012 amendment, by ch. 19, in the first paragraph, inserted “offender” near the beginning of the first sentence, updated a reference in the third sentence, and rewrote the last sentence, which formerly read: “Detention of a juvenile in a county jail for violation of a curfew is prohibited”; and inserted “offender” in the first sentence of the last paragraph.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 197, in the first paragraph, substituted “constitute an infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150)” for “be punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300), detention, or both” at the end of the first sentence and deleted the former third sentence, which read: “The imposition of detention shall be subject to the provisions of sections 20-520(1)(c) and 20-521, Idaho Code”; and deleted the former last paragraph, which read: “When sentencing a juvenile offender for violating a curfew, the court may also enter any order authorized in section 20-520, Idaho Code. The court shall have jurisdiction over the parent or legal guardian of the violator pursuant to section 20-522, Idaho Code”.

Chapter 6 COUNTY JAILS

Sec.

§ 20-601. County jails — By whom kept and for what use.

The common jails in the several counties of this state are kept by the sheriffs of the counties in which they are respectively situated, and are used as follows:

  1. For the detention of persons committed in order to secure their attendance as witnesses in criminal cases.
  2. For the detention of persons charged with crime and committed for trial.
  3. For the confinement of persons committed for contempt, or upon civil process, or by other authority of law.
  4. For the confinement of persons sentenced to imprisonment therein upon a conviction for crime.
  5. Any person who is arrested and taken to a county jail shall submit to the entire booking process, to include, but not be limited to, having his or her photograph taken and his or her fingerprints recorded. Any person who refuses to submit to the entire booking process will be held in the county jail until the process is completed, or until ordered to be released by a magistrate or district judge. A person held under this section shall be taken before a magistrate at the next scheduled first appearance time, but shall not be released until either the entire booking process is completed or the judge orders the release.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 17; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8525; C.S., § 9415; I.C.A.,§ 20-601; am. 1999, ch. 301, § 1, p. 753.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Erection of jails,§ 31-1001 et seq.

Refunding bonds for erection of jail,§ 31-1903.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

Right to assistance of counsel at proceedings to revoke probation. 44 A.L.R.3d 306.

Mail censorship and evidentiary use of convicted prisoners’ mail. 52 A.L.R.3d 548.

Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance of prisoner. 57 A.L.R.3d 172.

§ 20-602. Separate rooms required.

  1. Each county jail shall house male and female prisoners separately.
  2. Each county jail shall house separately all juveniles processed as adults under Idaho Code.
  3. Each county jail shall develop an objective inmate classification system which addresses the safety of all prisoners and the security of the facility. The classification system shall be documented through the Idaho sheriffs’ association jail inspection program using the minimum standards for detention facilities.

History.

1863, p. 475, §§ 19, 20; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8526; C.S., § 9416; I.C.A.,§ 20-602; am. 1993, ch. 213, § 1, p. 578.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

For more information on the Idaho sheriffs’ association jail inspection program, see http://idahosheriffs.org/jail%20standards%20and%20inspections.htm .

CASE NOTES

Cited

Sivak v. State, 112 Idaho 127, 730 P.2d 1047 (Ct. App. 1986).

§ 20-603. Authority to designate detention officers to act as peace officers.

All detention officers employed by the county sheriff who receive peace officer certification from the Idaho peace officer standards and training council shall have the authority given by statute to peace officers of the state of Idaho. The county sheriff shall have the authority to designate detention officers to act as peace officers when engaged in:

  1. Transportation of prisoners or apprehension and arrest of prisoners who have escaped; or
  2. Apprehension and arrest of persons who are suspected of having violated the terms and conditions of their probation; or
  3. Arrest of a person pursuant to court order or arrest warrant; or
  4. Arrest of a person without a warrant in cases where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime within the confines of a county jail.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-603, as added by 2000, ch. 145, § 1, p. 374; am. 2013, ch. 146, § 1, p. 342.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Idaho peace office standards and training council,§ 19-5102.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-603, which comprised (1864, p. 475, § 20; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8527; C.S., § 9417; I.C.A.,§ 20-603), was repealed by S.L. 1993, ch. 213, § 2, effective July 1, 1993.

Amendments.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 146, added the subsection designations and added subsection (4).

§ 20-604. Confinement — Order of the court.

Any district judge or magistrate may order a person confined or detained, upon any grounds provided by law, in any county or municipal jail or other confinement facility within the judicial district in which the court is located. Such order may thereafter be amended to transfer such person from such jail or facility to another at any place within the judicial district. If the county in which the court is located has made an agreement with another governmental unit or agency located outside the judicial district for the confinement or detention of persons, then any district judge or magistrate acting in that county may also order a person confined or detained outside of the judicial district in the confinement facility or jail described in such agreement. All persons, officers and officials in charge of a jail or confinement facility shall accept a person for detention or confinement upon receiving a certified copy of an order made pursuant to this section.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-604, as added by 1973, ch. 2, § 2, p. 4.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

Former§ 20-604, which comprised 1864, p. 475, § 22; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8531; C.S., § 9421; I.C.A.,§ 20-607, was repealed by S.L. 1973, ch. 2, § 1.

CASE NOTES

Application.

This section and§§ 20-605 and 20-606 regulate the city’s and the county’s responsibility for prisoners housed in counties other than those in which the city is situated, while§ 20-612 applies to prisoners housed within the county. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

Custody.

The board of corrections had authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against defendant, an inmate within the board’s custody, although defendant was not under sentence at the time. Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 841 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1992).

Disciplinary Violations.

Defendant failed to show that the alleged deprivation—confinement in state prison rather than county jail—caused the harm he claimed, namely, the disciplinary offense reports (DOR) on his prison record. It was possible for defendant to have remained in prison during 1990 without getting any DOR’s on his record. Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 841 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1992).

Defendant was entitled to file for habeas corpus relief to remedy his apparently improper confinement in the state prison, in order to bring about his transfer to the correct institution, but he was not entitled to violate the prison rules without punishment. Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 841 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1992).

Transfer of Inmate.

The board of corrections does not immediately lose “custody” over an inmate when the inmate’s conviction or sentence is vacated and his case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. During the time between vacation and transfer of the prisoner to the custody of the county sheriff, the board of correction must necessarily retain jurisdiction and control over the inmate until that transfer is carried out. Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 841 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1992).

Where an inmate’s transfer to another prison is not properly executed, but is unreasonably delayed or simply not carried out, the inmate’s remedy is to commence an administrative grievance procedure at the prison, or file a petition for habeas corpus relief. Brennan v. State, 122 Idaho 911, 841 P.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1992).

Cited

State v. Horejs, 143 Idaho 260, 141 P.3d 1129 (Ct. App. 2006).

§ 20-605. Costs of confinement.

The county wherein any court has entered an order pursuant to section 20-604, Idaho Code, shall pay all direct and indirect costs of the detention or confinement of the person to the governmental unit or agency owning or operating the jail or confinement facilities in which the person was confined or detained. The amount of such direct and indirect costs shall be determined on a per day per person basis by agreement between the county wherein the court entered the order and the county or governmental unit or agency owning or operating such jail or confinement facilities. In the absence of such agreement or order fixing the cost as provided in section 20-606, Idaho Code, the charge for each person confined or detained shall be the sum of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per day, plus the cost of any medical or dental services paid at the rate of reimbursement as provided in chapter 35, title 31, Idaho Code, unless a rate of reimbursement is otherwise established by contract or agreement; provided, however, that the county may determine whether the detained or confined person is eligible for any local, state, federal or private program that covers dental, medical and/or burial expenses. That person will be required to apply for those benefits, and any such benefits obtained may be applied to the detained or confined person’s incurred expenses, and in the event of the death of such detained or confined person, the county wherein the court entered the order shall pay all actual burial costs. Release from an order pursuant to section 20-604, Idaho Code, for the purpose of a person receiving medical treatment shall not relieve the county of its obligation of paying the medical care expenses imposed in this section. In case a person confined or detained was initially arrested by a city police officer for violation of the motor vehicle laws of this state or for violation of a city ordinance, the cost of such confinement or detention shall be a charge against such city by the county wherein the order of confinement was entered. All payments under this section shall be acted upon for each calendar month by the second Monday of the month following the date of billing.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-605, as added by 1973, ch. 2, § 3, p. 4; am. 1983, ch. 13, § 1, p. 48; am. 1986, ch. 115, § 1, p. 307; am. 1992, ch. 138, § 1, p. 427; am. 1994, ch. 362, § 1, p. 1135; am. 2009, ch. 177, § 1, p. 558; am. 2011, ch. 291, § 1, p. 794.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-605, which comprised, 1864, p. 475, § 22; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8532; C.S., § 9422; I.C.A.,§ 20-608, was repealed by S.L. 1973, ch. 2, § 1.

Amendments.

The 2009 amendment, by ch. 177, updated the last section reference in the third sentence in light of the 2009 amendment of§ 31-3502.

The 2011 amendment, by ch. 291, substituted “the rate of reimbursement as provided in chapter 35, title 31” for “the unadjusted medicaid rate of reimbursement as provided in section 31-3502(21)” in the third sentence.

Legislative Intent.

Section 21 of S.L. 2009, ch. 177 provided: “Legislative Intent. It is the intent of the Legislature that the revisions to Chapter 35, Title 31, Idaho Code, contained in this act, be reviewed by the Legislature three (3) years following the effective date of this act.”

CASE NOTES

Application.

This section and§§ 20-604 and 20-606 regulate the city’s and the county’s responsibility for prisoners housed in counties other than those in which the city is situated, while§ 20-612 applies to prisoners housed within the county. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

Compared with § 20-612.

Since§ 20-612 requires the county to pay for all necessary food, clothing and bedding, whereas this section limits the county’s liability to $20.00 [now $35] per day where prisoners are confined outside the county, it is clear that these sections are not in conflict, but merely apply to different situations. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

Liability of County.

While§ 50-302A makes the city liable to the county for the cost of jailing prisoners charged with or convicted of a city ordinance, and this section places liability on the city for the cost of keeping prisoners in other counties if that offending person was either initially arrested by a city police officer for violation of a city ordinance or for violation of the state motor vehicle laws, nevertheless, under§ 20-612, a city is not liable for the cost of keeping prisoners in the county jail if the prisoner has been arrested by a city police officer for violation of a state motor vehicle law. Pursuant to§ 20-612, the county has the duty to pay for the incarceration of such prisoners. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986). When a person is in the sheriff’s custody, whether indigent or not, the sheriff and custodial county are responsible for payment of medical expenses incurred. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Ctr., Ltd. v. Killeen, 124 Idaho 197, 858 P.2d 736 (1993).

The 1994 amendments of§§ 31-3302 and 20-612 and this section obligated Ada County to pay for an inmate’s entire hospitalization, where the inmate was released from custody during the hospitalization for the purpose of receiving medical treatment. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Raney, 163 Idaho 342, 413 P.3d 742 (2018).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

ALR. — Provision of hormone therapy or sexual reassignment surgery to state inmates with gender identity disorder (GID). 89 A.L.R.6th 701.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Responsibility for Prisoners.

Counties are responsible for the cost incurred by the county jail in housing a prisoner who has been charged with a state law violation committed within city limits and investigated by city police officers and while counties may bring legal action to recoup jail cost incurred for city prisoners charged under city ordinances or state motor vehicle laws, sheriffs cannot refuse to accept city prisoners.OAG 84-4.

§ 20-606. Determining confinement costs — Decree.

If a district judge or magistrate orders the confinement or detention of any person under the preceding section 20-604, Idaho Code, in a jail or confinement facility in which there is no agreement as to the daily costs of confinement or detention, then any governmental unit or agency involved may apply by petition to the district court of the county in which such jail or confinement facility is located to determine the direct and indirect costs of confinement per person per day at the jail or facility. Such petition shall be filed with the district court and a copy thereof served upon the board of county commissioners or clerk thereof of the county or counties to be affected thereby, which county or counties shall be denominated as the respondent. Such respondent shall thereafter be allowed twenty (20) days to appear and plead to said petition. The determination of such costs shall be made by a district judge sitting without a jury in the same manner as other civil actions under all rules of procedure for district courts of the state of Idaho. Upon the final determination of the petition by trial or otherwise, the district court shall enter a decree binding upon all parties thereto for all persons then confined from said county or counties joined in the petition, stating the dollar amount of the confinement or detention costs per person per day which shall be paid by any such county confining or detaining persons in the jail or facility pursuant to a court order made under section 20-604, Idaho Code. Such decree shall have the force and effect of a final judgment, but the district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to vacate or modify such decree upon a material change of circumstances affecting such costs.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-606, as added by 1973, ch. 2, § 4, p. 4; am 1989, ch. 231, § 1, p. 559.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-606, which comprised 1864, p. 475, § 23; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8533; C.S., § 9423; I.C.A.,§ 20-609, was repealed by S.L. 1973, ch. 2, § 1.

Effective Dates.

Section 6 of S.L. 1973, ch. 2 declared an emergency. Approved January 26, 1973.

CASE NOTES

Sections 20-604, 20-605 and this section regulate the city’s and the county’s responsibility for prisoners housed in counties other than those in which the city is situated, while§ 20-612 applies to prisoners housed within the county. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

§ 20-607. Prisoner reimbursement to the county.

  1. The county sheriff shall seek reimbursement for any expenses incurred by the county in relation to the charge or charges for which a person was sentenced to a county jail as follows:
    1. From each person who is or was a prisoner, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day for the expenses of maintaining that prisoner up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is less, for the entire period of time the person was confined in the county jail, including any period of pretrial detention;
    2. Any other expenses incurred by the county in order to collect payments under this section;
    3. In pursuing reimbursement under this section the county may investigate the financial status of the person.
    4. The county where the person was sentenced shall charge the person a daily maintenance cost according to paragraph (a) of this subsection and shall seek reimbursement once the debt has been incurred.
  2. Before seeking any reimbursement under this section, the sheriff shall develop a form to be used for determining the financial status of prisoners. The form shall provide for obtaining the age and marital status of the prisoner, the number and ages of children of the prisoner, the number and ages of other dependents, type and value of real estate, type and value of real and personal property, type and value of investments, cash, bank accounts, pensions, annuities, salary, wages and any other personal property of significant cash value. The county shall use the form when investigating the financial status of a prisoner and when seeking reimbursement.
    1. A prisoner in a county jail shall provide accurate information and cooperate with the county sheriff for purposes of satisfying subsection (2) of this section. (3)(a) A prisoner in a county jail shall provide accurate information and cooperate with the county sheriff for purposes of satisfying subsection (2) of this section.
    2. A prisoner who willfully refuses to provide accurate information or cooperate as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not receive a reduction in his or her term under section 20-621, Idaho Code.
  4. At the request of the board of county commissioners, the sheriff of the county shall forward to the board a list containing the name of each sentenced prisoner, term of sentence and date of admission.
    1. Within one (1) year of the release of a person as a sentenced prisoner from any county jail, a representative for that county may file a civil action in the magistrate’s division pursuant to the provisions of chapter 23, title 1, Idaho Code, to seek reimbursement from that person for the cost of incarceration. A civil action may be filed only after determining from the financial status form, as required in subsection (2) of this section, that sufficient assets are available to justify further recovery efforts and that further action to collect the daily expense for maintaining the sentenced person by the county will not cause the sentenced person or his dependents to qualify for public assistance. (5)(a) Within one (1) year of the release of a person as a sentenced prisoner from any county jail, a representative for that county may file a civil action in the magistrate’s division pursuant to the provisions of chapter 23, title 1, Idaho Code, to seek reimbursement from that person for the cost of incarceration. A civil action may be filed only after determining from the financial status form, as required in subsection (2) of this section, that sufficient assets are available to justify further recovery efforts and that further action to collect the daily expense for maintaining the sentenced person by the county will not cause the sentenced person or his dependents to qualify for public assistance.
    2. A civil action brought under this section shall be instituted in the name of the county in which the jail is located and shall state the dates and places of sentence, the length of time set forth in the sentence, the length of time actually served, and the amount or amounts due to the county pursuant to this section.
    3. Before entering any order on behalf of the county against the defendant, the court shall take into consideration any legal obligation of the defendant to support a spouse, minor children, other dependents or provide victim restitution and any moral obligation to support dependents to whom the defendant is providing or has in fact provided support. (6) The reimbursements secured under this section shall be credited to the justice fund or current expense fund of the county to be available for jail maintenance and operation purposes.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-607, as added by 1997, ch. 102, § 1, p. 236; am. 2003, ch. 245, § 1, p. 635; am. 2007, ch. 85, § 1, p. 236.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-607, which comprised 1864, p. 475, § 24; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8534; C.S., § 9424; I.C.A.,§ 20-610, was repealed by S.L. 1973, ch. 2, § 1, p. 4.

Amendments.

The 2007 amendment, by ch. 85, deleted “small claims department of the” preceding “magistrate’s division” in the first sentence in subsection (5)(a).

Effective Dates.

Section 3 of S.L. 1997, ch. 102 provided that the act should be in full force and effect on and after October 1, 1997.

Section 3 of S.L. 2003, ch. 245 declared an emergency. Approved April 8, 2003.

§ 20-608. Removal of prisoners in case of fire. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised 1864, p. 475, § 25; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8535; C.S., § 9425; I.C.A.,§ 20-611, was repealed by S.L. 2004 ch. 114, § 1.

§ 20-609. Removal of prisoners in case of pestilence. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2015, ch. 104, § 1, effective July 1, 2015.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 28; R.S., R.C. & C.L., § 8537; C.S., § 9427; I.C.A.,§ 20-613; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 11, p. 28.

§ 20-610. Service of papers on sheriff for prisoner.

A sheriff or jailer upon whom a paper in a judicial proceeding, directed to a prisoner in his custody, is served, must forthwith deliver it to the prisoner with a note thereon of the time of its service. For a neglect to do so he is liable to the prisoner for all damages occasioned thereby.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 28; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8537; C.S., § 9427; I.C.A.,§ 20-613.

§ 20-611. Employment of guard. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised 1864, p. 475, § 29; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8538; C.S., § 9428; I.C.A.,§ 20-614; am. 1974, ch. 6, § 12, p. 28, was repealed by S.L. 2004, ch. 114, § 1.

§ 20-612. Reception and board of prisoners.

The sheriff must receive all persons committed to jail by competent authority except mentally ill persons not charged with a crime and juveniles. It shall be the duty of the board of county commissioners to furnish all persons committed to the county jail with necessary food, clothing, bedding, and medical care, and the board of county commissioners is authorized to pay therefor out of the county treasury under such rules and regulations as they may prescribe. The county’s obligation herein shall not apply when the person is no longer committed to the county jail if the person has been released pursuant to a dismissal, bail, or any other court order of release, unless the release is a temporary release from the jail solely for the purpose of receiving medical care for an injury that occurred while committed in the county jail. Nothing in this chapter precludes a released person from access to coverage under chapter 35, title 31, Idaho Code.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 30; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8539; C.S., § 9429; I.C.A.,§ 20-615; am. 1949, ch. 150, § 1, p. 306; am. 1992, ch. 138, § 2, p. 427; am. 1994, ch. 362, § 2, p. 1135; am. 2019, ch. 255, § 1, p. 763.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Sheriff’s remuneration for care of prisoners in county jail,§ 31-3203.

Sheriff to take charge of county jail and prisoners therein,§ 31-2202.

Venereal diseases, duty to report,§ 39-602.

Venereal diseases, examination and treatment of inmates,§ 39-604.

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 255, in the second sentence, deleted “as provided in section 20-605, Idaho Code” following “medical care”; and added the last two sentences.

CASE NOTES

Application.

Sections 20-604, 20-605 and 20-606 regulate the city’s and the county’s responsibility for prisoners housed in counties other than those in which the city is situated, while this section applies to prisoners housed within the county. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

Compared with § 20-605.

Since this section requires the county to pay for all necessary food, clothing and bedding, whereas§ 20-605 limits the county’s liability to $20.00 [now $35] per day where prisoners are confined outside the county, it is clear that the statutes are not in conflict, but merely apply to different situations. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

Liability of County.

While§ 50-302A makes the city liable to the county for the cost of jailing prisoners charged with or convicted of a city ordinance, and§ 20-605 places liability on the city for the cost of keeping prisoners in other counties if that offending person was either initially arrested by a city police officer for violation of a city ordinance or for violation of the state motor vehicle laws, nevertheless, under this section, a city is not liable for the cost of keeping prisoners in the county jail if the prisoner has been arrested by a city police officer for violation of a state motor vehicle law. Pursuant to this section, the county has the duty to pay for the incarceration of such prisoners. County of Bannock v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 715 P.2d 962 (1986).

When a person is in the sheriff’s custody, whether indigent or not, the sheriff and custodial county are responsible for payment of medical expenses incurred. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Ctr., Ltd. v. Killeen, 124 Idaho 197, 858 P.2d 736 (1993) (see 2019 amendment).

The 1994 amendments of§§ 31-3302 and 20-605 and this section obligated Ada County to pay for an inmate’s entire hospitalization, where the inmate was released from custody during the hospitalization for the purpose of receiving medical treatment. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Raney, 163 Idaho 342, 413 P.3d 742 (2018) (see 2019 amendment).

Cited

Mombert v. Bannock County, 9 Idaho 470, 75 P. 239 (1904); Killeen v. Vernon, 121 Idaho 94, 822 P.2d 991 (1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

ALR. — Provision of hormone therapy or sexual reassignment surgery to state inmates with gender identity disorder (GID). 89 A.L.R.6th 701.

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Responsibility for Prisoners.

Counties are responsible for the cost incurred by the county jail in housing a prisoner who has been charged with a state law violation committed within city limits and investigated by city police officers, and while counties may bring legal action to recoup jail costs incurred for city prisoners charged under city ordinances or state motor vehicle laws, sheriffs cannot refuse to accept city prisoners.OAG 84-4.

§ 20-613. Security for board of civil prisoners.

Whenever a person is committed upon process in a civil action or proceeding, except when the people of this state are a party thereto, the sheriff is not bound to receive such person, unless security is given on the part of the party at whose instance the process is issued, by a deposit of money, to meet the expenses for him of necessary food, clothing and bedding, or to detain such person any longer than these expenses are provided for. This section does not apply to cases where a party is committed as a punishment for disobedience to the mandates, process, writs or orders of court.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 31; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8540; C.S., § 9430; I.C.A.,§ 20-616.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Civil arrest,§ 8-101 et seq.

Civil arrest, creditor to advance board money to jailer,§ 8-212.

Contempt proceedings, defendant not to be confined unless necessary to secure his personal attendance,§ 7-615.

Discharge of persons imprisoned on civil arrest,§ 8-201 et seq.

§ 20-614. Prisoners must be actually confined except on order of court for private employment.

  1. A prisoner committed to the county jail by any court for trial or examination, or upon conviction for a public offense, must be confined in the jail until he is legally discharged unless the court specifies otherwise.
  2. If the committed person has been regularly employed, the sheriff shall, if ordered by the committing judge, arrange for a continuation of said employment insofar as possible without interruption.
  3. Whenever the prisoner is not employed, and between the hours or periods of his employment, he shall be confined in jail as an ordinary prisoner.
  4. In case of any violation of the conditions laid down for his conduct, custody and employment the prisoner shall be returned to the court, and the court may then require the balance of his or her sentence be spent in actual confinement and may cancel any earned diminution of his or her term.
  5. The sheriff shall receive such extra compensation and mileage for the administration of this act as the county commissioners determine.
  6. The court may also by its order authorize the use of a jail in a contiguous or other county where the prisoner is employed, and while the prisoner is so employed under this act such prisoner shall be in the other county’s custody.
  7. The defendant may be incarcerated on nonemployment days only. If such confinement is approved, the court shall provide that the county jail shall be reimbursed the costs of confinement, in the amount provided in section 20-605, Idaho Code, by the defendant.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 32; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8528; C.S., § 9418; I.C.A.,§ 20-604; am. 1957, ch. 237, § 1, p. 567; am. 1977, ch. 11, § 1, p. 22; am. 1987, ch. 182, § 1, p. 361; am. 1989, ch. 104, § 1, p. 237; am. 1989, ch. 231, § 2, p. 559; am. 1993, ch. 213, § 3, p. 578; am. 1994, ch. 28, § 1, p. 45; am. 2000, ch. 115, § 1, p. 254.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Penalty for helping or permitting escape,§ 18-2502.

Voting not permitted by inmates,§ 34-403; Idaho Const., Art. VI, § 3.

Witness, examination of prisoner as, when confined in jail,§§ 9-711 to 9-713.

Compiler’s Notes.

The term “this act” in subsections (5) and (6) refers to S.L. 1957, chapter 237, which is codified as this section only.

CASE NOTES

Intent.

Since ultimate question to be determined by court is good or bad faith of sheriff in releasing prisoners, evidence is properly admitted upon question of intent or motive. Cornell v. Mason, 46 Idaho 112, 268 P. 8 (1928).

Leaving Visual Custody.

This section must be construed in connection with§§ 20-617 to 20-620. Prisoner leaving the visual presence of his custodian is guilty of technical escape which may not develop into actual escape until aided by another who then becomes guilty of assisting in the escape. State v. Jones, 54 Idaho 782, 36 P.2d 530 (1934).

Wilful Neglect on Part of Sheriff.

Sheriff permitting prisoner to go at large out of jail except by virtue of legal order or process is guilty of wilful neglect of duty punishable under§ 18-2502. Cornell v. Mason, 46 Idaho 112, 268 P. 8 (1928).

Cited

State v. Hughes, 102 Idaho 703, 639 P.2d 1 (1981); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 893 P.2d 814 (Ct. App. 1995).

§ 20-615. Reception of federal prisoners.

The sheriff must receive and keep in the county jail any prisoner committed thereto by process or order issued under the authority of the United States, until he is discharged according to law, as if he had been committed under process issued under the authority of this state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 31; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8529; C.S., § 9419; I.C.A.,§ 20-605.

§ 20-616. Sheriff answerable for federal prisoners.

A sheriff to whose custody a prisoner is committed, as provided in the last section, is answerable for his safe-keeping in the courts of the United States, according to the laws thereof.

History.

1863, p. 475, § 42; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8530; C.S., § 9420; I.C.A.,§ 20-606.

§ 20-617. Labor of prisoners on public works.

Persons confined in the county jail under a judgment of conviction, suspended sentence or withheld judgment rendered in any criminal case, either under a judgment of imprisonment or a judgment for the payment of a fine and costs, or persons participating in a diversion program pursuant to section 19-3509, Idaho Code, may be required to perform labor on federal, state or other governmental projects or community service projects.

History.

1868, p. 90, § 1; R.S. & R.C., § 8541; am. 1915, ch. 141, p. 298, § 1; reen. C.L., § 8541; C.S., § 9431; am. 1927, ch. 74, § 1, p. 93; I.C.A.,§ 20-617; am. 2000, ch. 112, § 1, p. 249; am. 2016, ch. 212, § 1, p. 597; am. 2019, ch. 305, § 10, p. 899.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2016 amendment, by ch. 212, added “or community service projects” at the end of the section.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 305, inserted “or persons participating in a diversion program pursuant to section 19-3509, Idaho Code” near the end of the section.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Jones, 54 Idaho 782, 36 P.2d 530 (1934).

§ 20-618. Jail commissary fund.

County jails which provide commissary items to inmates, and collect the costs or a portion of the costs for such items from an inmate with sufficient funds to pay for items, are authorized to create a self-perpetuating commissary fund. The purpose of the commissary fund is to both supply and provide a fund from which reimbursement can be made to the county for an inmate’s use or purchases of necessary hygiene items, recreational devices and other inmate care items, medical items and services, and any other debts incurred pursuant to this chapter. This fund shall be subject to a yearly audit authorized by the board of county commissioners.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-618, as added by 1994, ch. 29, § 1, p. 46; am. 1996, ch. 14, § 1, p. 34; am. 2005, ch. 181, § 1, p. 555.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§§ 20-618 and 20-619, which comprised 1895, p. 100, § 3; reen. 1899, p. 253, § 3, R.S., R.C., & C.L., §§ 8542, 8542c; C.S., §§ 9432, 9434; I.C.A.§§ 20-618, 20-619, were repealed by S.L. 1989, ch. 231, § 3.

§ 20-619. Fee for medical service.

  1. County sheriff departments administering county jails may charge a nominal fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) to any nonindigent inmate who has sufficient funds in his commissary or personal account for the purpose of seeing the jail provided doctor or nurse for a medical complaint. In the event that an inmate is indigent, such service shall be provided by the county at no cost.
  2. The county sheriff departments administering county jails may charge actual costs to any nonindigent inmate who has sufficient funds in his commissary or personal account for pharmaceuticals prescribed or authorized by jail medical staff.
  3. A “nonindigent” inmate, for purposes of this section, is an inmate who has money in his commissary or personal account normally used for the purchase of personal items for the inmate.
  4. All debts incurred pursuant to this section may be collected from the inmate’s commissary or personal account, in whole or in part, at any time during the period of incarceration, whenever moneys exist in or are placed into the inmate’s commissary or personal account, provided that the jail has in place a process by which the affected inmate may contest the assessment of moneys owed. Collection of moneys owed may occur at any time, in whole or in part, until such time as the full balance of the moneys owed is completely retired, provided that there shall be no further efforts to collect the debt after four (4) years from the date in which the debt was actually incurred.
  5. The county sheriff may require the inmate to provide health insurance information including, but not limited to, group, plan and identification numbers. The county sheriff is authorized to submit medical costs to the inmate’s health insurance company on behalf of the inmate.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-619, as added by 1994, ch. 213, § 1, p. 671; am. 2001, ch. 50, § 1, p. 92; am. 2005, ch. 181, § 2, p. 555.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-619 was repealed. See Prior Laws,§ 20-618.

§ 20-620. No prisoner exempt from labor.

No prisoner liable to employment as provided in this chapter shall be exempt therefrom except by reason of physical disability.

History.

1895, p. 100, § 4; reen. 1899, p. 253, § 4; reen. R.C., § 8542d; compiled and reen. C.L., § 8542d; C.S., § 9435; I.C.A.,§ 20-620.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Jones, 54 Idaho 782, 36 P.2d 530 (1934).

§ 20-621. Commutation for good behavior.

Every person serving a jail sentence in a county jail in the state of Idaho who has a good record as a prisoner and who performs the tasks assigned him in an orderly and peaceable manner, shall upon the recommendation of the sheriff be allowed five (5) days off of each and every month of his sentence, by the magistrate judge.

History.

1915, ch. 130, p. 287; reen. C.L., § 8542e; C.S., § 9436; I.C.A.,§ 20-621; am. 1989, ch. 231, § 4, p. 559.

CASE NOTES

Release by Sheriff.

Sheriff has no authority to release prisoners on his own motion without observing requirements of this section. Cornell v. Mason, 46 Idaho 112, 268 P. 8 (1928).

Cited

State v. Hughes, 102 Idaho 703, 639 P.2d 1 (1981); State v. Staten, 114 Idaho 925, 762 P.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1988).

§ 20-622. Inspection of jail by commissioners.

The county commissioners must inspect the county jail, and once every three (3) months inquire into the state thereof as respects the security thereof, treatment and condition of the prisoners, and take all necessary precaution against escape, sickness or infection.

History.

1863, p. 596, § 2; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8543; C.S., § 9437; I.C.A.,§ 20-622.

CASE NOTES

Supervisory Authority of Board.

County commissioners’ supervisory authority under§ 31-802 to control other constitutional officers did not extend to the sheriff’s bail procedures. The commissioners were not empowered to direct the sheriff’s conduct regarding bail, which was a matter within the sheriff’s authority. Allied Bail Bonds, Inc. v. County of Kootenai, 151 Idaho 405, 258 P.3d 340 (2011).

§ 20-623. Jailer to return list of prisoners. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised 1864, p. 596, § 6; R.S., R.C., & C.L., §§ 8544; C.S., §§ 9438; I.C.A.,§ 20-623, was repealed by S.L. 1989, ch. 231, § 5.

§ 20-624. Imprisonment for fine.

Whenever any defendant is confined solely for willful non-payment of any fine, the court, may, in lieu of payment, confine such person at the rate of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per day until the fine imposed is satisfied.

History.

1863, p. 596, § 8; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8545; C.S., § 9439; I.C.A.,§ 20-624; am. 1957, ch. 11, § 1, p. 14; am. 1989, ch. 231, § 6, p. 559; am. 1992, ch. 138, § 3, p. 427; am. 1995, ch. 265, § 1, p. 848.

§ 20-625. Governor may order removal of prisoners. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2013, ch. 145, § 1, effective July 1, 2013.

History.

1863, p. 596, § 9; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8546; C.S., § 9440; I.C.A.,§ 20-625.

§ 20-626. Expenses of removal. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2015, ch. 104, § 2, effective July 1, 2015.

History.

1863, p. 596, § 10; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 8547; C.S., § 9441; I.C.A.,§ 20-626.

§ 20-627. Unlawful conveyance of articles into and out of county jail.

Any person who shall deliver or attempt to deliver or shall have in his possession with the intent to deliver, any letter, article or thing, to one confined in a county jail or in any other place or building used or substituted for a county jail, or who deposits or conceals any letter, article or thing in or about such jail or in or about such other place or building used or substituted for a county jail with the intent that one confined in such jail or such other place or building shall obtain or receive the same, without the knowledge or permission of the sheriff or a deputy sheriff; or any person who shall receive from one confined within a jail any letter, article or thing with the intent to convey the same out of the jail without the knowledge and permission of the sheriff or a deputy sheriff; or any person who shall purchase, exchange, take or receive from any prisoner while he may be working or remaining outside the county jail, any letter, article or thing without the knowledge and permission of the sheriff or a deputy sheriff, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History.

C.S., § 9441-A, as added by 1929, ch. 213, § 1, p. 433; I.C.A.,§ 20-627.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Penalty for misdemeanor when not otherwise provided,§ 18-113.

Similar provisions concerning penitentiary,§ 18-2510.

§ 20-628. Jail disciplinary action for frivolous or malicious court proceedings.

  1. In any case, whether filed in state, federal or administrative court, in which a prisoner in a county jail submits a frivolous or malicious claim, or knowingly testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to the court, the prisoner may be subject to jail disciplinary action. Such disciplinary action may be initiated upon the court’s finding that:
    1. The prisoner has filed a claim that is frivolous or malicious;
    2. The prisoner filed a claim solely to harass the party;
    3. The prisoner has knowingly testified falsely or otherwise knowingly submitted false evidence or information to the court; or
    4. The prisoner has committed a fraud upon the court.
  2. In the absence of a finding by the court under subsection (1) of this section, and upon review and recommendation by the county prosecutor, or the attorney general, a disciplinary hearing may be held by the appropriate authority at the county jail, pursuant to chapter 6, title 20, Idaho Code, to determine whether the prisoner has filed a claim that is malicious or intended solely to harass the party, or has testified falsely or otherwise presented false evidence or information to the court.
  3. Upon a finding of guilt under either subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the prisoner shall be subject to jail disciplinary detention and loss of privileges consistent with established jail disciplinary procedures.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-628, as added by 1996, ch. 420, § 4, p. 1398.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Attorney general,§ 67-1401 et seq.

Chapter 7 INTERSTATE CORRECTIONS COMPACT

Sec.

§ 20-701. Interstate Corrections Compact.

The Interstate Corrections Compact is hereby enacted into law and entered into by this state with any other states legally joining therein in the form substantially as follows:

INTERSTATE CORRECTIONS COMPACT

ARTICLE I — PURPOSE AND POLICY

The party states, desiring by common action to fully utilize and improve their institutional facilities and provide adequate programs for the confinement, treatment and rehabilitation of various types of offenders, declare that it is the policy of each of the party states to provide such facilities and programs on a basis of cooperation with one another, thereby serving the best interests of such offenders and of society and effecting economies in capital expenditures and operational costs. The purpose of this compact is to provide for the mutual development and execution of such programs of cooperation for the confinement, treatment and rehabilitation of offenders with the most economical use of human and material resources.

ARTICLE II — DEFINITIONS

As used in this compact, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

  1. “State” means a state of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  2. “Sending state” means a state party to this compact in which conviction or court commitment was had.
  3. “Receiving state” means a state party to this compact to which an inmate is sent for confinement other than a state in which conviction or court commitment was had.
  4. “Inmate” means a male or female offender who is committed, under sentence to, or confined in a penal or correctional institution.
  5. “Institution” means any penal or correctional facility, including but not limited to a facility for the mentally ill or mentally defective, in which inmates as defined in (d) above may lawfully be confined.

ARTICLE III — CONTRACTS

  1. Each party state may make one or more contracts with any one or more of the other party states for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated within receiving states. Any such contract shall provide for:
    1. Its duration.
    2. Payments to be made to the receiving state by the sending state for inmate maintenance, extraordinary medical and dental expenses, and any participation in or receipt by inmates of rehabilitative or correctional services, facilities, programs or treatment not reasonably included as part of normal maintenance.
    3. Participation in programs of inmate employment, if any; the disposition or crediting of any payments received by inmates on account thereof; and the crediting of proceeds from or disposal of any products resulting therefrom.
    4. Delivery and retaking of inmates. 5. Such other matters as may be necessary and appropriate to fix the obligations, responsibilities and rights of the sending and receiving states.
  2. The terms and provisions of this compact shall be a part of any contract entered into by the authority of or pursuant thereto, and nothing in any such contract shall be inconsistent therewith.

ARTICLE IV — PROCEDURES AND RIGHTS

  1. Whenever the duly constituted authorities in a state party to this compact, and which has entered into a contract pursuant to Article III, shall decide that confinement in, or transfer of an inmate to, an institution within the territory of another party state is necessary or desirable in order to provide adequate quarters and care or an appropriate program of rehabilitation or treatment, said officials may direct that the confinement be within an institution within the territory of said other party state, the receiving state to act in that regard solely as agent for the sending state.
  2. The appropriate officials of any state party to this compact shall have access, at all reasonable times, to any institution in which it has a contractual right to confine inmates for the purpose of inspecting the facilities thereof and visiting such of its inmates as may be confined in the institution.
  3. Inmates confined in an institution pursuant to the terms of this compact shall at all times be subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state and may at any time be removed therefrom for transfer to a prison or other institution within the sending state, for transfer to another institution in which the sending state may have a contractual or other right to confine inmates, for release on probation or parole, for discharge, or for any other purpose permitted by the laws of the sending state; provided that the sending state shall continue to be obligated to such payments as may be required pursuant to the terms of any contract entered into under the terms of Article III of this act.
  4. Each receiving state shall provide regular reports to each sending state on the inmates of that sending state in institutions pursuant to this compact including a conduct record of each inmate and certify said record to the official designated by the sending state, in order that each inmate may have official review of his or her record in determining and altering the disposition of said inmate in accordance with the law which may obtain in the sending state and in order that the same may be a source of information for the sending state.
  5. All inmates who may be confined in an institution pursuant to the provisions of this compact shall be treated in a reasonable and humane manner and shall be treated equally with such similar inmates of the receiving state as may be confined in the same institution. The fact of confinement in a receiving state shall not deprive any inmate so confined of any legal rights which said inmate would have had if confined in an appropriate institution of the sending state.
  6. Any hearing or hearings to which an inmate confined pursuant to this compact may be entitled by the laws of the sending state may be had before the appropriate authorities of the sending state, or of the receiving state if authorized by the sending state. The receiving state shall provide adequate facilities for such hearings as may be conducted by the appropriate officials of a sending state. In the event such hearing or hearings are had before officials of the receiving state, the governing law shall be that of the sending state and a record of the hearing or hearings as prescribed by the sending state shall be made. Said record together with any recommendations of the hearing officials shall be transmitted forthwith to the official or officials before whom the hearing would have been had if it had taken place in the sending state. In any and all proceedings had pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision, the officials at the receiving state shall act solely as agents of the sending state and no final determination shall be made in any matter except by the appropriate officials of the sending state.
  7. Any inmate confined pursuant to this compact shall be released within the territory of the sending state unless the inmate, and the sending and receiving states, shall agree upon release in some other place. The sending state shall bear the cost of such return to its territory.
  8. Any inmate confined pursuant to the terms of this compact shall have any and all rights to participate in and derive any benefits or incur or be relieved of any obligations or have such obligations modified or his status changed on account of any action or proceeding in which he could have participated if confined in any appropriate institution of the sending state located within such state.
  9. The parent, guardian, trustee, or other person or persons entitled under the laws of the sending state to act for, advise, or otherwise function with respect to any inmate shall not be deprived of or restricted in his exercise of any power in respect of any inmate confined pursuant to the terms of this compact.

ARTICLE V — ACTS NOT REVIEWABLE IN RECEIVING STATE: EXTRADITION

  1. Any decision of the sending state in respect of any matter over which it retains jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall be conclusive upon and not reviewable within the receiving state, but if at the time the sending state seeks to remove an inmate from an institution in the receiving state there is pending against the inmate within such state any criminal charge or if the inmate is formally accused of having committed within such state a criminal offense, the inmate shall not be returned without the consent of the receiving state until discharged from prosecution or other form of proceeding, imprisonment or detention for such offense. The duly accredited officers of the sending state shall be permitted to transport inmates pursuant to this compact through any and all states party to this compact without interference.
  2. An inmate who escapes from an institution in which he is confined pursuant to this compact shall be deemed a fugitive from the sending state and from the state in which the institution is situated. In the case of an escape to a jurisdiction other than the sending or receiving state, the responsibility for institution of extradition or rendition proceedings shall be that of the sending state, but nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent or affect the activities of officers and agencies of any jurisdiction directed toward the apprehension and return of an escapee.

ARTICLE VI — FEDERAL AID

Any state party to this compact may accept federal aid for use in connection with any institution or program, the use of which is or may be affected by this compact or any contract pursuant hereto and any inmate in a receiving state pursuant to this compact may participate in any such federally aided program or activity for which the sending and receiving states have made contractual provision, provided that if such program or activity is not part of the customary correctional regimen, the express consent of the appropriate official of the sending state shall be required therefor.

ARTICLE VII — ENTRY INTO FORCE

This compact shall enter into force and become effective and binding upon the states so acting when it has been enacted into law by any two (2) states. Thereafter, this compact shall enter into force and become effective and binding as to any other of said states upon similar action by such state. ARTICLE VIII — WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION

This compact shall continue in force and remain binding upon a party state until it shall have enacted a statute repealing the same and providing for the sending of formal written notice of withdrawal from the compact to the appropriate officials of all other party states. An actual withdrawal shall not take effect until one (1) year after the notices provided in said statute have been sent. Such withdrawal shall not relieve the withdrawing state from its obligations assumed hereunder prior to the effective date of withdrawal. Before the effective date of withdrawal, a withdrawing state shall remove to its territory, at its own expense, such inmates as it may have confined pursuant to the provisions of this compact.

ARTICLE IX — OTHER ARRANGEMENTS UNAFFECTED

Nothing contained in this compact shall be construed to abrogate or impair any agreement or other arrangement which a party state may have with a nonparty state for the confinement, rehabilitation or treatment of inmates nor to repeal any other laws of a party state authorizing the making of cooperative institutional arrangements.

All contracts made pursuant to section 20-705, Idaho Code, prior to the effective date of this act are hereby ratified according to their terms and conditions for the life of such contracts.

ARTICLE X — CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY

The provisions of this compact shall be liberally construed and shall be severable. If any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any participating state or of the United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state participating therein, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

ARTICLE XI — POWERS

The board of correction is hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the compact in every particular and may in its discretion delegate this authority to the director of corrections; provided, however, that any contract on behalf of this state to implement the participation of this state in this compact shall not be of any force or effect until approved by the board of examiners.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-701, as added by 1974, ch. 249, § 2, p. 1638.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Board of examiners,§ 67-2001 et seq. Director of correction,§ 20-217A.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 20-701, which comprised 1959, ch. 56, § 1, p. 117, was repealed by S.L. 1974, ch. 249, § 1.

Compiler’s Notes.

Section 20-705, referred to in the second paragraph of Article IX, was repealed by S.L. 1974, ch. 249, § 1.

The term “this act” at the end of Article IV(c) refers to S.L. 1974, chapter 249, which is codified as§§ 20-701, 20-702, and 20-704. Here, the reference is just to§ 20-701.

The phrase “the effective date of this act” in the second paragraph of Article IX refers to the effective date of S.L. 1974, chapter 249, which was effective July 1, 1974.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Construction and application of interstate corrections compact and implementing state laws — Equivalency of conditions and rights and responsibilities of parties. 56 A.L.R.6th 553.

§ 20-702. Commitment or transfer of inmates.

Any court or other agency or officer of this state having power to commit or transfer an inmate (as defined in Article II(d) of the Interstate Corrections Compact) to any institution for confinement may commit or transfer such inmate to any institution within or without this state if this state has entered into a contract or contracts for the confinement of inmates in said institution pursuant to Article III of the Interstate Corrections Compact.

History.

1959, ch. 56, § 2, p. 117; am. 1974, ch. 249, § 3, p. 1638.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The words enclosed in parentheses so appeared in the law as enacted.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Construction and application of interstate corrections compact and implementing state laws — Equivalency of conditions and rights and responsibilities of parties. 56 A.L.R.6th 553.

§ 20-703. Enforcement of compact and effectuation of purpose.

The courts, departments, agencies and officers of this state and its subdivisions shall enforce this compact and shall do all things appropriate to the effectuation of its purpose and intent which may be within their respective jurisdictions including but not limited to the making and submission of such reports as are required by the compact.

History.

1959, ch. 56, § 3, p. 117.

CASE NOTES

Bench Warrant.

The court’s issuance of the bench warrant was within its jurisdiction under the Interstate Corrections Compact, as an integral part of the extradition process, rather than under the court’s previously exercised sentencing power. Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989).

Purpose.

When the Idaho legislature approved this compact, the legislature also imposed a special duty on the courts to “enforce this compact and do all things appropriate to the effectuation of its purpose and intent;” this statutory duty carried with it the power to issue a bench warrant for fugitives. Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Construction and application of interstate corrections compact and implementing state laws — Equivalency of conditions and rights and responsibilities of parties. 56 A.L.R.6th 553.

§ 20-704. Hearings.

The board of correction, the state board of health and welfare and/or such other agency or officer designated for such purpose by the governor, are hereby authorized and directed to hold such hearings within or without the state of Idaho as may be requested by any other party state pursuant to Article IV(f) of the Interstate Corrections Compact.

History.

1959, ch. 56, § 4, p. 117; am. 1974, ch. 249, § 4, p. 1638.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Board of correction,§ 20-201A.

Board of health and welfare,§ 56-1005.

Compiler’s Notes.

This section was amended twice in 1974 by § 13 of ch. 6, effective July 1, 1974, approved February 14, 1974 and § 4 of ch. 249, effective July 1, 1974, approved April 2, 1974. Since § 4 of ch. 249 was the last expression of the legislature it has been set out above as the section. Section 13 of ch. 6 changed the name of the state board of health to the state board of health and welfare. This change has been made in the above section by the code commission on the authority of S.L. 1974, ch. 286, § 1 and S.L. 1974, ch. 23, § 47 (§ 39-103).

Section 6 of S.L. 1959, ch. 56 read: “The provisions of this act shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this act is declared to be unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any state, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the constitutionality of this act and the applicability thereof to any other state, agency, person or circumstance shall, with respect to all severable matters, not be affected thereby. It is the legislative intent that the provisions of this act be reasonably and liberally construed.”

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 1959, ch. 56 provided such act should be in full force and effect from and after July 1, 1959.

Section 14 of S.L. 1974, ch. 6 provided the act should be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1974.

CASE NOTES

Cited

Chapa v. State, 115 Idaho 439, 767 P.2d 282 (Ct. App. 1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

§ 20-705. Governor authorized to enter into contracts. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised S.L. 1959, ch. 56, § 5, was repealed by S.L. 1974, ch. 249, § 1.

Chapter 8 PRIVATE PRISON FACILITIES

Sec.

§ 20-801. Definitions.

In this chapter:

  1. “Contracting authority” means a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city.
  2. “Correctional facility” means a facility for the confinement of prisoners. The term shall be construed to include references to terms including, but not limited to, “prison,” “state prison,” “state penitentiary,” “governmental detention facility,” “penal institution (facility),” “correctional institution,” “detention institution (facility),” “county jail,” “jail,” “private prison (facility)” or “private correctional facility.” The term does not include a treatment facility designed to evaluate and treat substance abuse when the treatment facility is operated under the direction of a political subdivision of the state of Idaho.
  3. “Governmental entity” means a state, county, city, municipal corporation or other political subdivision of the state, or a territory of the United States and any political subdivision thereof.
  4. “In-state prisoner” means a person who has been convicted of a crime in the state of Idaho and is either incarcerated or on parole for that crime or in custody for trial and sentencing, and who is being housed in any state, local or private correctional facility, or who is being transported in any manner within or through the state of Idaho.
  5. “Local correctional facility” means a facility for the confinement of prisoners operated by or under the control of a county or city. The term shall include references to “county jail,” or “jail.” The term shall also include a private correctional facility housing prisoners under the custody of the state board of correction, the county sheriff or other local law enforcement agency.
  6. “Medium security” or “medium custody” means a security or custody classification reserved for prisoners who have demonstrated an ability to follow institutional rules and regulations, who may have a considerable amount of time remaining to serve and who may present an escape risk at a lower assigned custody level.
  7. “Minimum security” or “minimum custody” means a security or custody classification reserved for prisoners who have continuously demonstrated an ability to follow institutional rules and regulations; who are either committed for a nonviolent crime or are committed on a violent crime; who are generally within twelve (12) months of parole eligibility; and who normally do not present an escape risk.
  8. “Out-of-state prisoner” or “out-of-state inmate” means a person who is convicted of and sentenced for a crime in a state other than the state of Idaho, or under the laws of the United States or other foreign jurisdiction, and who is being housed in any state, local or private correctional facility in the state of Idaho, or who is being transported in any manner within or through the state of Idaho.
  9. “Prisoner” means a person who has been convicted of a crime in the state of Idaho and is either incarcerated or on parole for that crime or in custody for trial and sentencing, or who is convicted of and sentenced for a crime in a state other than the state of Idaho, or under the laws of the United States or other foreign jurisdiction, and who is being housed in any state, local or private correctional facility, or who is being transported in any manner within or through the state of Idaho. The term shall be construed to include references to terms including, but not limited to, “inmate,” “convict,” “detainee,” and other similar terms, and shall include “out-of-state prisoner” and “out-of-state inmate.” (10) “Private prison contractor” means any person, organization, partnership, joint venture, corporation or other business entity engaged in the site selection, design, design/building, acquisition, construction, construction/management, financing, maintenance, leasing, leasing/purchasing, management or operation of private prison facilities or any combination of these services. For purposes of this chapter, “private prison contractor” does not include those persons, organizations, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations or other business entities that contract with a political subdivision of the state of Idaho for the construction of a facility provided the facility will be operated by the political subdivision or where the facility is operated under the direction of the political subdivision and is designed to evaluate and treat substance abuse.

(11) “Private prison facility” or “private correctional facility,” for purposes of this chapter, means a correctional facility constructed or operated in the state of Idaho by a private prison contractor pursuant to contract with a contracting authority as defined herein.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-801, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 1, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

State board of correction,§ 20-201A.

§ 20-802. Application of chapter.

The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to contracts of the state of Idaho for the housing of inmates in a private prison facility or local government detention facility.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-802, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123.

§ 20-803. Private prison contractors — Contract or approval required to construct and operate private prison facilities and to house out-of-state prisoners.

  1. A private prison contractor may not construct or operate a private prison facility in this state except pursuant to a contract with the state of Idaho, as authorized in chapter 2, title 20, Idaho Code, or pursuant to a written contract with a county or city of this state, as authorized by the provisions of this chapter.
  2. A private prison contractor may not house in a private prison facility in this state prisoners who have been convicted of offenses committed against the laws of a governmental entity other than the state of Idaho and its political subdivisions except pursuant to a written contract with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the facility is located or the governing body of the city in which the facility is located, and only if the requirements of this chapter are met.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-803, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 2, p. 1177.

§ 20-804. Authority of county or city to house prisoners in a private prison facility.

  1. A board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city may authorize the housing of specific minimum to medium security prisoners of the county or the city in a private prison facility pursuant to contract with the private prison contractor and subject to the review and approval of the prisoners by the department of correction. Provided, however, that in no event shall a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city authorize, nor shall the department of correction approve, housing of any maximum or close custody prisoners, inmates imprisoned for sexual offenses or prisoners with a history or record of institutional violence involving the use of a deadly weapon, a history or record of committing any act of an assaultive nature that would qualify as a felony under the laws of the state of Idaho against any prisoner, employee or visitor while confined, or a history or record of escape or attempted escape from secure custody.
  2. A board of county commissioners may not contract with a private prison contractor in which a commissioner or an elected or appointed peace officer or other county official has an interest pursuant to chapter 5, title 74, Idaho Code. The governing body of a city may not contract with a private prison contractor in which the mayor, a member of the city council, or any appointed peace officer or other city official has an interest pursuant to chapter 5, title 74, Idaho Code. A contract made in violation of the provisions of this subsection is voidable.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-804, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 3, p. 1177; am. 2015, ch. 141, § 27, p. 379.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Amendments.

The 2015 amendment, by ch. 141, substituted “chapter 5, title 74” for “chapter 2, title 59” in the first two sentences in subsection (2).

§ 20-805. Contracts with a private prison contractor.

  1. A board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city, may enter into a contract with a private prison contractor for the site selection, design, design/building, acquisition, construction, construction/management, financing, maintenance, leasing, leasing/purchasing, management or operation of private prison facilities or any combination of these services, subject to the following requirements and limitations:
    1. Any request for proposals, any original contract, any contract renewal, any price or cost adjustment or any other amendment to any contract for the incarceration of individuals in a private prison facility shall be reviewed and approved by the contracting authority. The contract shall be in a form as provided for by the department of administration in consultation with the department of correction;
    2. No contract authorized by the provisions of this section shall be awarded until the private prison contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the contracting authority that the contractor possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to provide the services specified in the contract; that the contractor can provide the necessary qualified personnel to implement the terms of the contract; that the financial condition of the contractor is such that the terms of the contract can be fulfilled; that the contractor has the ability to comply with applicable court orders and meet corrections standards; and that the proposed private prison facilities or the correctional services proposed by the contractor meet constitutional minimums;
    3. The contract shall provide for the assumption of liability by the private prison contractor for all claims arising from the services performed under the contract by the private prison contractor;
    4. No contract authorized by the provisions of this section shall be awarded until the private prison contractor provides a policy of insurance for all claims satisfactory to the contracting authority specifically including, but not limited to, insurance for civil rights claims as determined by a risk management or actuarial firm with demonstrated experience in public liability for state governments. The insurance policy shall provide coverage for the private prison contractor and its officers, guards, employees and agents as well as insure the state, including all state agencies, and all political subdivisions of the state with jurisdiction over the facility or in which a facility is located against all claims arising from the services performed under the contract by the private prison contractor, its officers, guards, employees and agents. The private prison contractor shall immediately provide written notification of cancellation of insurance to the state department of correction and the contracting authority. The private prison contractor may not self-insure. Proof of insurance shall be provided on or before January 1 of every year to the state department of correction and the contracting authority;
    5. If the contract includes construction or renovation, the contract shall require a performance bond approved by the contracting authority that is adequate and appropriate for the proposed construction or renovation contract;
    6. Except as otherwise permitted under the constitution or laws of the state of Idaho, no contract awarded pursuant to this section shall provide for the encumbrance of funds beyond the amount available for a fiscal year; (g) The contract shall require the private prison contractor to be licensed by the department of correction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
  2. Any contract between a contracting authority and a private prison contractor, whereby the contractor provides for the housing, care, and control of prisoners in a facility operated by the contractor, shall contain, in addition to other provisions, terms and conditions:
    1. A requirement that the private prison contractor provide the services in a facility which meets correctional standards satisfying constitutional minimums, state and federal laws, rules and regulations and applicable court orders, including, but not limited to, all sanitation, food service, safety and health regulations;
    2. A requirement that the private prison contractor send copies of reports of inspections completed by appropriate authorities regarding compliance with laws, rules and regulations of the type described in subsection (2)(a) of this section to the governing authority of the local public entity in which the correctional facility is located;
    3. If a private prison contractor enters into a contract with a board of county commissioners for a private prison facility to be located on private land within the limits of any city, it shall be required that the contractor obtain written authorization from the governing body of the city in which the facility is to be located;
    4. A requirement that the private prison contractor provide training to its personnel to a level acceptable to the contracting authority. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to confer peace officer status upon any employee of the private prison contractor or to authorize the use of firearms. A private correctional officer or other designated employee of a private prison contractor may carry and use firearms in the course of the officer’s or employee’s employment only if the officer or employee is certified as having satisfactorily completed a training program approved by the department of correction and only if used to prevent escape from the facility or from custody while being transported to or from the facility or to prevent an act which would cause death or serious bodily injury to any person. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to confer county or city employee status upon any employee of the private prison contractor;
    5. A requirement that the private prison contractor will not employ any person at the private prison facility until after the private contractor has submitted to the bureau of criminal identification, on a form prescribed by the bureau, a request that the bureau conduct a criminal records check of the person and a requirement that the private prison contractor will not employ any person at the facility if the records check or other information possessed by the contractor indicates that the person has a criminal history or record, regardless of the form of judgment;
    6. A requirement that the private prison facility be staffed at all times to ensure supervision of prisoners and maintenance of security within the private prison facility and to provide for appropriate programs, transportation, security and other operational needs. In determining security needs for the private prison facility, the private contractor and the contract requirements shall fully take into account all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the proximity of the facility to neighborhoods and schools;
    7. A requirement that the private prison contractor, its officers, guards, employees, and agents immediately notify the county sheriff and any other law enforcement or other governmental entities, agencies or personnel named in the contract or required to be informed as provided in this chapter of any riot, rebellion, escape, crime or other emergency situation occurring inside or outside the facility, and a requirement that the private prison contractor reimburse costs as provided in section 20-809, Idaho Code. Notification shall be made by telephone and in writing. The written notice may be made by facsimile transmission or mail;
    8. A requirement that the private contractor adopt and use in the private prison facility a drug testing and treatment program that meets the standards of any drug testing and treatment program the department of correction uses for its prisoners in state correctional institutions;
    9. A requirement that the private prison contractor provide advance written notice to the county sheriff of the contracting authority and any other law enforcement or other governmental entities, agencies or personnel named in the contract, of its intent to provide for transport of any prisoners to or from the private prison facility and of the intended destination;
    10. A requirement that the private prison contractor shall be solely responsible for any damage caused by a prisoner in its custody and shall be solely responsible for security and all costs associated with transporting and housing prisoners to and from locations outside the private prison facility including, but not limited to, court, medical and sending facility locations. The private prison contractor’s responsibility for costs will include, but not be limited to, all costs which may be required by court officials for additional security for the prisoner provided by federal, state, county or city officials;
    11. A requirement that no prisoner shall be housed in a private prison facility pursuant to this chapter without the prior approval of the department of correction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Prior to housing any proposed prisoner in the private prison facility, all records in the possession of, or available to, the sending entity, including, but not limited to, classification, medical information, conduct and confinement history of the prisoner shall be provided to the department of correction for review and the department shall have the authority to approve or reject housing of the prisoner based on standards as set forth pursuant to this chapter. Provided however, that in lieu of providing the department of correction with medical information of a prisoner, a sending entity may elect to certify, by a physician licensed in this state and employed by, or under contract with, the private prison facility, that the prisoner under consideration for placement in the facility has been tested, and has not tested positive, for the presence of HIV antibodies or antigens, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and tuberculosis;
    12. A requirement that the private prison contractor, prior to housing any out-of-state prisoner in the private prison facility under the contract, enter into an agreement with the local contracting governmental entity that sets forth a conversion plan that will be followed if, for any reason, the facility is closed or ceases to operate. The conversion plan shall provide, in part, that the private prison contractor shall be responsible for housing and providing for the transportation of the prisoners who are in the facility at the time it is closed or ceases to operate and for the cost of such housing and transporting of those prisoners;
    13. A requirement that the private prison contractor conform to applicable standards, and obtain accreditation from, the American correctional association and the national commission on correction [correctional] health care;
    14. A requirement that the private prison contractor indemnify and hold harmless the state, its officers, agents and employees and any local governmental entity in the state with jurisdiction over the place at which the private prison facility is located or that owns the private prison facility, and shall reimburse the state or local governmental entity for costs incurred defending the state or local governmental entity or any of its officers, agents or employees against all claims including the following:
      1. Any claims or losses for services rendered by the contractor, its officers, agents or employees, performing or supplying services in connection with the performance of the contract;
      2. Any failure of the contractor, its officers, agents or employees to adhere to the laws, rules, regulations or terms agreed to in the contract; (iii) Any constitutional, federal, state or civil rights claim brought against the governmental entity related to the facility operated and managed by the contractor;
      3. Any claims, losses, demands or causes of action arising out of the activities in this state of the contractor, its officers, agents or employees;
      4. Any attorney’s fees or court costs arising from any habeas corpus actions or other prisoner suits that may arise from any event that occurred at the facility or was a result of such an event, or arise over the conditions, management or operation of the facility, which fees and costs shall include, but not be limited to, attorney’s fees for the governmental entity’s representation and for any court-appointed representation of any prisoner.
    15. A clear statement that provisions set forth within this chapter do not affect any immunity or defense that the state and its officers and employees or a contracting authority and its officers and employees may be entitled to under another section of the Idaho Code, including, but not limited to chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code;
    16. A clear statement that no immunity from liability granted to the state, and no immunity from liability granted to political subdivisions pursuant to chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code, shall extend to the private prison contractor or any of the private prison contractor’s employees;
    17. A requirement that the private prison contractor and its personnel comply with the provisions of this chapter, all laws of the state of Idaho, and all ordinances, policies and procedures of the contracting authority;
    18. A requirement that any ambiguities in the contract shall be construed against the private prison contractor and in favor of the contracting authority.
  3. Contracts awarded under the provisions of this section shall, at a minimum, comply with the following:
    1. Provide for internal and perimeter security to protect the public, employees and prisoners;
    2. Provide that the private prison contractor shall not benefit financially from the labor of prisoners nor shall any prisoner ever be placed in a position of authority over another prisoner. Any profits realized from the operation of a prison enterprise program shall revert to the contracting authority;
    3. Provide that the private prison contractor shall impose discipline on prisoners only in accordance with applicable rules, policies and procedures satisfying constitutional minimums, state and federal laws and applicable court orders;
    4. Require that the private prison contractor provide proper food, clothing, housing and medical care as provided for in the contract. The governmental entity contracting with the private prison contractor shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the medical care of prisoners in the custody of the private prison contractor.
  4. The contracting authority or its designee, as provided in the contract, shall monitor the performance of the private prison contractor. Included in the powers and responsibilities of the contracting authority or its designee, when acting as the contract monitor of the private prison contract are:
    1. A determination if the requirements of the contract are being satisfactorily performed;
    2. A determination whether the private prison contractor and its personnel are complying with the provisions of this chapter, all laws of the state of Idaho and any ordinances or written policies and procedures of the county or city governing the private prison facility;
    3. A determination if applicable ordinances, written policies and procedures of the contracting authority are being followed by the private prison contractor and its personnel;
    4. A determination whether the facility is being operated in a manner which adequately safeguards and protects the safety of the public;
    5. Approval of all prisoner releases on furlough or work release;
    6. The enactment of ordinances or the adoption of written policies or procedures interpreting or making specific application of the provisions of this chapter.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-805, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2000, ch. 272, § 10, p. 786; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 4, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Bureau of criminal identification,§ 67-3003 et seq.

Department of administration,§ 62-5701 et seq.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Compiler’s Notes.

For more information on the American correctional association, referred to in paragraph (2)(m), see http://www.aca.org/ACA Prod IMIS/ACA Member/

Home/ACA Member/Home.aspx .

The bracketed insertion in paragraph (2)(m) was added by the compiler to correct the name of the referenced commission. See http://www.ncchc.org/ .

Effective Dates.

Section 14 of S.L. 2000, ch. 272 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 2000.

§ 20-806. Private prison facilities — Requirements — Licensing.

A private prison contractor that has contracted for the location or operation of a private prison facility within a county or a city of this state shall comply with the following requirements:

  1. An individual, corporation, partnership, association, or other private organization or entity may not operate a private prison facility in this state unless licensed by the department of correction. The board of correction shall have the power and it shall be its duty to promulgate rules necessary to implement and enforce standards for the licensing and operation of private prison facilities as set forth pursuant to this chapter. Applications for licenses shall be made on forms provided by the department of correction and accompanied by the required license fee. Licenses for the operation of private prisons shall be nontransferable. A license may be revoked if the facility fails to meet the standards and provisions of this chapter. All final decisions by the board shall be subject to review pursuant to the provisions and procedures of the administrative procedure act, chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code;
  2. The facility shall meet correctional standards satisfying constitutional minimums, state and federal laws and applicable court orders;
  3. If the private prison facility is located on land owned by the county or the city or other publicly owned land which is not subject to real property taxes, the county or the city, if the facility is located within the limits of the city, may require the private prison contractor to pay fees to the county or the city in lieu of property taxes, as compensation for the costs to the county or the city of regulating, monitoring and providing services to the facility;
  4. The facility must provide internal and perimeter security to protect the public, employees and prisoners;
  5. The private prison contractor shall impose discipline on prisoners only as permitted by correctional standards satisfying constitutional minimums, state and federal laws, and applicable court orders;
  6. The private prison contractor shall provide prisoners with proper food, clothing, housing and medical care in accordance with constitutional minimums, state and federal laws, and applicable court orders. The private prison contractor shall require that anyone providing professional services to prisoners shall be licensed as provided by the state of Idaho if the professional would be required to be licensed in the state of Idaho to provide services to the general public;
  7. The private prison contractor shall allow access to the facility at all times and cooperate with all state and local authorities and their designees in the performance of their duties pursuant to section 20-805(4), Idaho Code, and section 20-808, Idaho Code.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-806, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 5, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq. State board of correction,§ 20-201A.

§ 20-807. Out-of-state prisoners.

  1. A board of county commissioners may authorize a private prison contractor operating a private prison facility within the county and the governing body of a city may authorize a private prison contractor operating a private prison facility within the city to house specific minimum to medium security prisoners convicted of offenses committed against the laws of a governmental entity other than the state of Idaho or its political subdivisions pursuant to contract with the private prison contractor and subject to the review and approval of the prisoners by the department of correction. Provided however, that in no event shall a board of county commissioners or the governing body of a city authorize, nor shall the department of correction approve, housing of any maximum or close custody prisoners, inmates imprisoned for sexual offenses or prisoners with a history or record of institutional violence involving the use of a deadly weapon, a history or record of committing any act of an assaultive nature that would qualify as a felony under the laws of the state of Idaho against any prisoner, employee or visitor while confined, or a history or record of escape or attempted escape from secure custody.
  2. Out-of-state prisoners may be housed in a private prison facility only if the following requirements are met:
    1. The custody level capacity and availability in the private prison facility is adequate to house the prisoners;
    2. The private prison contractor and the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the city, in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies, and other appropriate governmental entities and agencies, have developed a written plan explaining the procedure to be used to coordinate law enforcement and other necessary activities in response to any riot, rebellion, escape or other emergency situation occurring in or on the grounds of, or otherwise in connection with, the facility;
    3. The private prison facility meets standards for the care, custody, treatment and control of prisoners which comply with constitutional minimums, state and federal laws and applicable court orders and any additional standards required by the county or the city;
    4. Each prisoner to be paroled or released from custody must be transported and released by the private prison contractor or its agent in the sending governmental entity’s jurisdiction;
    5. Before transferring the prisoner to Idaho, the private prison contractor shall obtain prior approval of the department of correction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Prior to housing any proposed prisoner in the private prison facility, all records in the possession of, or available to, the sending entity including, but not limited to, classification, medical information, conduct and confinement history of the prisoner shall be provided to the department of correction for review and the department shall have the authority to approve or reject housing of the prisoner based on standards as set forth pursuant to this chapter. Provided however, that in lieu of providing medical information of a prisoner, a sending entity may elect to certify, by a physician licensed in this state and employed by, or under contract with, the private prison facility, that the prisoner under consideration for placement in the facility has been tested, and has not tested positive, for the presence of HIV antibodies or antigens, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and tuberculosis;
    6. The sending governmental entity will not transfer and the private prison contractor will not accept a prisoner who has a history or record of institutional violence involving the use of a deadly weapon, a history or record of committing any act of an assaultive nature that would qualify as a felony under the laws of the state of Idaho against any prisoner, employee or visitor while confined or a history or record of escape or attempted escape from secure custody;
    7. The private prison contractor will determine the prisoner’s custody level in order to ensure that the custody level assignments for the facility as a whole are compatible with the construction security level availability in the facility. If it is determined by the county or the city or the private prison contractor that the prisoner poses a substantial risk to the community, prison population or staff or should be classified as maximum security or close custody, the prisoner will be returned to the sending governmental entity.
  3. Neither this section nor any other provision of this chapter shall be construed to authorize the release of an out-of-state prisoner confined in a private prison facility on work release, furlough or other release from the facility except as provided in any contract authorized in this chapter or as provided by county or city ordinance.
  4. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as a limitation upon the authority of the state of Idaho, a county or a city of this state to incarcerate, detain or place a person convicted of an offense committed against the laws of the United States, a territory of the United States, another state or a political subdivision thereof in a correctional facility, county jail or other governmental detention facility in this state pursuant to the laws of the United States, the state of Idaho or other applicable law.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-807, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2000, ch. 272, § 11, p. 786; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 6, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

Effective Dates.

Section 14 of S.L. 2000, ch. 272 declared an emergency. Approved April 12, 2000.

§ 20-808. Monitoring private prisons.

In addition to and without limiting the authority provided in this chapter or by contract entered into pursuant to section 20-805, Idaho Code, or as provided by other applicable law, the board of county commissioners, the county sheriff, the prosecuting attorney or the authorized agents and employees of a county in which a private prison facility is located and the governing board of a city, the city attorney, law enforcement personnel of the city and other authorized agents and employees of the city in which a private prison facility is located, shall be authorized to monitor the facility and to enter the facility and the grounds thereof for the following purposes:

  1. To determine if the private prison contractor, its personnel and the private prison facility are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, all laws of the state of Idaho and any ordinances or written policies and procedures of the county or city governing the private prison facility;
  2. To investigate any criminal conduct which has occurred, is occurring or is alleged to have occurred in or on the grounds of, or otherwise in connection with, the facility;
  3. To determine whether the facility is being operated in a manner which adequately safeguards and protects the safety of the public;
  4. To review prisoner security or custody classifications to determine whether any classifications need to be revised.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-808, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 7, p. 1177.

§ 20-809. Riot, rebellion, escape, crime or emergency situation — Notice — Reimbursement for costs.

  1. The private prison contractor, its officers, guards, employees, and agents shall immediately notify the county sheriff and, if the facility is located within the limits of a city, the city law enforcement agency, along with any other law enforcement or other governmental entities, agencies or personnel which the county or the city may require to be informed, of any riot, rebellion, escape, crime or other emergency situation occurring inside or outside the facility.
  2. In the event of an escape by a prisoner from a private prison facility to which this chapter applies, the private prison contractor must contact the county sheriff and, if the facility is located within the limits of a city, the city law enforcement agency, and any other governmental entities or agencies which the county or city may require to be informed, upon receiving knowledge of the escape, but may attempt to apprehend the prisoner while the search or pursuit is on the private prison contractor’s private property. In the event that the escaping prisoner flees from the private prison contractor’s private property, the sheriff of the county, in cooperation with city law enforcement as appropriate, shall organize and have jurisdiction over the pursuit and apprehension of the prisoner.
  3. A private prison contractor shall reimburse Idaho governmental entities for costs incurred by the entities in responding to any riot, rebellion, escape, crime or other emergency situation occurring in or on the grounds of, or otherwise in connection with, the facility. The private prison contractor shall also reimburse Idaho governmental entities for costs incurred by the entities with respect to the investigation, prosecution, detention or appellate litigation, without regard to whether conviction is obtained, of a prisoner charged with a crime resulting from a riot, rebellion, escape or other criminal conduct.
  4. If a prisoner commits a criminal offense while confined in a private prison facility in this state and is convicted of or pleads guilty to that offense and is sentenced to a term of confinement for that offense but is not sentenced to death for that offense, the prisoner shall be returned to the out-of-state jurisdiction or the out-of-state jurisdiction’s private contractor for confinement. The prisoner shall not begin serving the term of confinement imposed for the offense committed while confined in this state until such time as the prisoner is released from the custody of the out-of-state jurisdiction. The private prison contractor or its agent will transport the prisoner, or cause the prisoner to be transported, to the out-of-state jurisdiction. If the prisoner is confined in this state in a facility operated by, or pursuant to a state contract with, the department of correction for any period of time prior to transfer back to the out-of-state jurisdiction, the private contractor will be financially responsible for reimbursing the department at the per diem cost of confinement for the duration of that incarceration. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, any sentence imposed against a prisoner by a court in the state of Idaho may be imposed to run concurrently with any sentence already being served by the prisoner.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-809, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 8, p. 1177.

STATUTORY NOTES
Cross References.

Department of correction,§ 20-201 et seq.

§ 20-810, 20-811. Crimes committed in a private prison facility — Other code references. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

These sections, which comprised I.C.,§ 20-810, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123, were repealed by S.L. 2000, ch. 272, § 12, effective April 12, 2000.

§ 20-812. Enforcement — Available remedies — Civil penalty.

  1. The county prosecuting attorney shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter, and any county ordinances enacted, or written policies or procedures adopted by the county with respect to the operation of a private prison facility in the county, or any contract entered into between a board of county commissioners and a private prison contractor by civil action and may seek all available civil remedies including injunction. If the prosecuting attorney prevails in the action, the private prison contractor shall be liable to the county for attorney’s fees and costs of suit. The action shall be brought in the district court of the county in which the private prison facility is located or is proposed to be located.
  2. The city attorney shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter, and any city ordinances enacted or written policies or procedures adopted by the governing body of the city with respect to the operation of a private prison facility within the city, or any contract entered into between the governing body of a city and a private prison contractor by civil action and he may seek all available civil remedies including injunction. If the city attorney prevails in the action, the private prison contractor shall be liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit. The action shall be brought in the district court of the county in which the private prison facility is located or is proposed to be located.
  3. In addition to any other remedies, a private prison contractor constructing, renovating or operating a private prison facility in this state in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any ordinances enacted or written policies or procedures adopted by a county or city governing the construction, renovation or operation of a private prison facility, or a contract entered into pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each separate violation or for each day of a continuing violation.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-812, as added by 1998, ch. 360, § 1, p. 1123; am. 2001, ch. 335, § 9, p. 1177.

Chapter 9 RESTRAINT OF PREGNANT PRISONERS

Sec.

§ 20-901. Definitions.

In this chapter:

  1. “Correctional institution” means any entity under the authority of any state, county or municipal law enforcement division that has the power to detain and/or restrain a person under the laws of this state.
  2. “Corrections official” means the official designated as responsible for oversight of a correctional institution, or his or her designee.
  3. “Extraordinary circumstance” means a substantial flight risk or some other extraordinary medical or security circumstance that dictates restraints be used to ensure the safety and security of the prisoner or detainee, the staff of the correctional institution or medical facility, other prisoners or detainees, or the public.
  4. “Labor” means the period of time before a birth during which contractions are of sufficient frequency, intensity and duration to bring about effacement and progressive dilation of the cervix.
  5. “Prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility, including persons held under the immigration laws of the United States.
  6. “Restraints” means any physical restraint or mechanical device used to control the movement of a prisoner or detainee’s body and/or limbs.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-901, as added by 2011, ch. 223, § 1, p. 610.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2011, ch. 223 declared an emergency. Approved April 6, 2011.

§ 20-902. Restrictions on restraint of pregnant prisoners — Extraordinary circumstance.

  1. A correctional institution shall not use restraints of any kind on a prisoner known to be pregnant during labor and delivery, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
  2. In an extraordinary circumstance, where a corrections official makes an individualized determination that restraints are necessary to prevent a prisoner from escaping or from injuring herself or medical or correctional personnel, such a prisoner or detainee may be restrained, provided that:
    1. If the doctor, nurse or other health professional treating the prisoner requests that restraints not be used, the corrections officer accompanying the prisoner shall immediately remove all restraints; and
    2. Under no circumstances shall leg or waist restraints be used on any prisoner during labor or delivery.
  3. If restraints are used on a prisoner pursuant to subsection (2) of this section:
    1. Both the type of restraint applied and the application of the restraint must be done in the least restrictive manner necessary; and
    2. The corrections official shall make written findings within ten (10) days as to the extraordinary circumstance that dictated the use of the restraints. As part of this documentation, the corrections official must also include the kind of restraints used and the reasons those restraints were considered the least restrictive available and the most reasonable under the circumstances. These findings shall be kept on file by the institution for at least five (5) years and be made available for public inspection, except that no information identifying any individual prisoner or detainee shall be made public under the provisions of this section without the prisoner or detainee’s prior written consent.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-902, as added by 2011, ch. 223, § 1, p. 610.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2011, ch. 223 declared an emergency. Approved April 6, 2011.

§ 20-903. Notice to prisoners.

  1. Correctional institutions shall inform prisoners of the provisions of this chapter upon admission to the correctional institution.
  2. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this chapter, correctional institutions shall inform prisoners within the custody of the correctional institution by posting this chapter in a location accessible to all prisoners.

History.

I.C.,§ 20-903, as added by 2011, ch. 223, § 1, p. 610.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

The phrase “the effective date of this chapter” in subsection (2) refers to the effective date of S.L. 2011, Chapter 223, which was April 6, 2011.

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 2011, ch. 223 declared an emergency. Approved April 6, 2011.