16-11-209. Duties of probation officers.

Statute text

(1) It is the duty of a probation officer to investigate and report upon any case referred to him or her by the court for investigation. The probation officer shall furnish to each person released on probation under his or her supervision a written statement of the conditions of probation and shall instruct the person regarding the same. The officer shall keep informed concerning the conduct and condition of each person on probation under his or her supervision and shall report thereon to the court at such times as it directs. Such officers shall use all suitable methods, not inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the court, to aid persons on probation and to bring about improvement in their conduct and condition. Each officer shall keep records of his or her work; shall make such reports to the court as are required; and shall perform such other duties as the court may direct.

(2) to (3.1) Repealed.

(4) (a) Prior to an offender being released from probation, the probation officer releasing the individual shall provide the notice described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (4) at the last meeting the officer has with the person.

(b) The notice shall contain the following information:

(I) That a person convicted of certain crimes has the right to seek to have his or her criminal record sealed;

(II) That there are collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction that a sealing order can alleviate;

(III) The list of crimes that are eligible for sealing and the associated time period that a person must wait prior to seeking sealing;

(IV) That the state public defender has compiled a list of laws that impose collateral consequences related to a criminal conviction and that the list is available on the state public defender's website; and

(V) That the person should seek legal counsel if he or she has any questions regarding record sealing.

(5) A probation officer assigned to an individual on probation shall provide information to that individual regarding:

(a) The individual's voting rights;

(b) How the individual may register to vote or update or confirm his or her voter registration record;

(c) How to obtain and cast a ballot; and

(d) How to obtain voter information materials.

History

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 246, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 39-11-209. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 876, 12, effective June 5. L. 2013: (4) added, (SB 13-123), ch. 289, p. 1539, 1, effective May 24; (1), IP(2), (2)(b), and (3)(c) amended, (SB 13-250), ch. 333, p. 1931, 45, effective October 1. L. 2017: (2)(d) and (3)(e) amended, (SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1298, 121, effective May 25. L. 2018: (5) added, (SB 18-150), ch. 261, p. 1601, 4, effective August 8. L. 2022: (3.1) added by revision, (HB 22-1257), ch. 69, pp. 354, 362, 4, 14.

Annotations

Editor's note: Subsection (3.1) provided for the repeal of subsections (2), (3), and (3.1), effective July 1, 2023. (See L. 2022, pp. 354, 362.)

Annotations

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, "The Problem of Compelling Fathers to Support Their Dependent Children", see 27 Dicta 442 (1950).

It is the duty of a probation officer, as outlined in this section, to maintain surveillance and supervision of a probationer, to aid the probationer and to bring about improvement in his conduct and condition, and to otherwise act in a manner beneficial to the probationer. Logan v. People, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958) (decided under repealed 39-16-8, CRS 53).

The absence of an authorizing law or condition of probation does not necessarily render unconstitutional a warrantless search of a probationer's residence if based on a reasonable suspicion. The totality of all other relevant circumstances may render such a search reasonable. The defendant's status as a probationer on intensive supervised probation greatly reduced his reasonable expectation of privacy in his residence, and, combined with the other circumstances of the situation, justified the search by his probation officer. People v. Samuels, 228 P.3d 229 (Colo. App. 2009).