Power to Suspend Sentences
Although many states had passed probation laws, beginning with Massachusetts in 1878, probation was not established at the federal level until much later. For many years the federal courts had used a form of probation through suspending sentences. Increasingly, however, the U.S. Department of Justice disapproved of the use of the suspended sentence, believing that it infringed upon executive pardoning power and therefore was unconstitutional. The matter came before the Supreme Court in Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27. In what became known as the Killits decision, the Supreme Court in 1916 held that federal courts did not have the power to suspend sentence indefinitely and that there was no reason or right for the courts to continue the practice. The Supreme Court suggested probation legislation as a remedy.
In 1974 Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act. Title II of the Act authorized the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to establish “demonstration” pretrial services agencies in 10 judicial districts. The goal was to reduce crime by persons released to the community pending trial and to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention. The agencies were to interview each person charged with other than a petty offense, verify background information, and present a report to the judicial officer considering bail. The agencies also were to supervise persons released to their custody pending trial and to help defendants on bail locate and use community services. Five of the agencies were administered by the Administrative Office and five by boards of trustees appointed by the chief judges of the district courts.
Probation Act of 1925
The Probation Act of 1925, signed by President Calvin Coolidge, provided for a probation system in the federal courts (except in the District of Columbia). It gave the courts the power to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place defendants on probation for such period and on such terms and conditions as they deemed best. The Act also authorized courts to appoint one or more persons to serve as probation officers without compensation and one salaried probation officer.
Pretrial Services Act of 1982
President Ronald Reagan signed the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. The Act authorized expansion of pretrial services from the ten demonstration districts to every federal judicial district (except the District of Columbia). It granted an 18-month evaluation period for each court to decide whether to establish separate pretrial services offices or provide pretrial services through the probation office. Consequently, each court chose the form of pretrial services organization that best met its needs, considering such factors as criminal caseload and court locations. Expanding pretrial services to all districts marked a significant milestone for what was now the “federal probation and pretrial services system.” Now officers were involved in the criminal justice process from the time a person was arrested on a federal charge until he or she completed community supervision.
Probation and Pretrial Services Milestones
|1925||President Calvin Coolidge signs the Probation Act of 1925, establishing probation as a sentence in the federal courts.|
|1927||The first federal probation officer, Richard McSweeney, is appointed in the District of Massachusetts.|
|1930||Congress creates the National Parole Board and amends the Probation Act to give officers responsibility to supervise federal parolees.|
|1937||The first issue of the scholarly journal Federal Probation is published.|
|1943||The first policy monograph, The Presentence Investigation Report, tells officers how to conduct presentence investigations and prepare reports.|
|1946||Officers take on the duty of investigating the parole plans of Army and Air Force prisoners and supervising them following release from disciplinary barracks.|
|1950||A national training center is established in Chicago to provide officers with orientation and refresher training.|
|1955||Officers form their own professional organization, the Federal Probation and Pretrial Officers Association(link is external).|
|1963||The Judicial Conference of the United States forms a permanent committee—the Committee on the Administration of the Probation System—expressly to address probation system issues.|
|1975||Pretrial services agencies are established as an experiment in ten districts.|
The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a policy that allows each district court to decide whether officers carry firearms.
|Early policies discouraged officers from carrying firearms and suggested that doing so was inconsistent with probation work–that in supervising individuals, officers assumed a helping role, not a law enforcement one. In the 1970’s, however, the Judicial Conference began to see circumstances in which arming officers might be prudent. The 1975 policy statement still presumed that officers should not be armed–unless their assignments subjected them to serious risk of physical harm. A decade passed before the Judicial Conference addressed the matter of firearms training. In 1987, in two-week training sessions held in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Galveston, Texas, the system’s first firearms instructors were trained to teach firearms handling and safety in their respective districts.|
|1978||Congress gives the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts the authority to provide contract aftercare treatment services to drug-dependent persons under probation system supervision.|
|Before this time, the Attorney General had the authority to provide specialized programs and community aftercare for all drug-dependent defendants and offenders. In 1979, the Administrative Office began administering the national Substance Abuse Treatment Program to guide officers in identifying and treating substance abusers under their supervision. Substance abuse specialist positions were created in 1983 to provide intensive supervision to substance abusers. In 1986 and 1987, Congress expanded the Director’s contract authority to include services for alcohol-dependent offenders and offenders requiring psychiatric treatment.|
|1982||President Ronald Reagan signs the Pretrial Services Act, which authorizes expansion of pretrial services to each district court.|
|1984||The Bail Reform Act allows judges to consider danger to the community as a factor in deciding whether to release or detain persons awaiting trial.|
|The Bail Reform Act radically changed the pretrial process in that it permitted courts to detain dangerous defendants. Previously, courts did not consider danger to the community in deciding whether to release or detain persons awaiting trial. This new development increased the number of persons detained to such an extent that, within a few years, the nation faced a national pretrial detention crisis. The increase in detention rates affected where defendants were housed while awaiting trial and when trials were scheduled. It hampered access to defendants by pretrial services officers and other parties in the criminal justice process. As a result of the situation, the Judicial Conference of the United States implored Congress to provide sufficient funding for adequate housing and supervision of pretrial detainees and encouraged use of alternatives to incarceration for some defendants, including community supervision and home confinement.|
|1986||The Sentencing Reform Act fundamentally changes the sentencing process in the federal courts.|
|The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was passed in response to congressional concern about fairness in sentencing. The Act completely changed the way courts sentenced federal offenders. The Act created a new federal agency, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, to set sentencing guidelines for every federal offense. When federal sentencing guidelines went into effect on November 1, 1987, they significantly altered judges’ sentencing discretion, officers’ preparation of the presentence investigation report, and officers’ overall role in the sentencing process. The new sentencing scheme also placed officers in a more adversarial environment in the courtroom, where attorneys might dispute facts, question guideline calculations, and object to the information in the presentence report. In addition to providing for a new sentencing process, the Act also replaced parole with “supervised release,” a term of community supervision to be served by prisoners after they completed prison terms.|
|1986||U.S. Probation Officer Thomas Gahl (Southern District of Indiana) is killed in the line of duty.|
|On September 22, 1986, U.S. Probation Officer Thomas Gahl was slain by a mentally ill parolee under his supervision. Officer Gahl, who was 38 years old, was gunned down during a routine home visit. His death–the first and, to date, the only, officer line-of-duty death in the system–underscored the risks inherent in supervising an increasingly dangerous offender population and the critical importance of officer safety training.|
|1986||The home confinement program is launched in the federal courts.|
|The Special Curfew Program was the federal courts’ first use of home confinement. It was part of an experimental program–a cooperative venture of the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission, and the federal probation system–as an alternative to Bureau of Prisons Community Treatment Center (CTC) residence for eligible inmates. These inmates, instead of CTC placement, received parole dates advanced a maximum of 60 days and were subject to a curfew and minimum weekly contact with a probation officer. Electronic monitoring became part of the home confinement program several years later. In 1988, a pilot program was launched in two districts to evaluate the use of electronic equipment to monitor persons in the curfew program. The program was expanded nationally in 1991 and grew to include offenders on probation and supervised release and defendants on pretrial supervision as those who may be eligible to be placed on home confinement with electronic monitoring.|
|1989||Probation officers begin to receive for supervision persons sentenced to serve a term of supervised release.|
|Phasing out parole and tightening sentencing requirements changed community supervision. The introduction of supervised release and increases in drug prosecutions and other serious cases caused a shift away from probation cases. As a result, most persons who came under supervision of federal probation officers had not been sentenced to probation, but sentenced to prison terms to be followed by community supervision.|
|1999||The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a policy requiring updated background investigations for officers and officer assistants.|
|2000||The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts a workplace drug testing program for officers and officer assistants and a zero tolerance policy for the use of controlled substances.|
|2001||Officers take on responsibility to obtain DNA samples from persons under their supervision who have been convicted of certain crimes.|
|2002||The Judicial Conference of the United States adopts medical requirements and guidelines for officers and officer assistants.|
|2005||A national training academy for new officers is established at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Charleston, South Carolina.|
|In partnership with FLETC, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts launched a national training academy for officers. The academy provided the means to offer new officers training as soon as possible after they were appointed by their courts and to provide them with comprehensive and uniform training. In addition to new officers, the academy offered an ideal environment for training officers who served as firearms and safety instructors in their districts.|
SOURCE: United States Courts