NCJ Number
150258
Journal
Perspectives Volume: 18 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1994) Pages: 14-21
Date Published
1994
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This analysis of judicial immunity for probation and parole officers concludes that the scope of this immunity is imprecise and difficult to delineate, although the trend appears to be toward greater immunity protection except in egregious cases.
Abstract
The increasing and changing probation and parole population make it likely that more offenses will be committed by probationers and parolees each year. An analysis of past cases indicates that the first issue is to determine whether the officer sued enjoyed judicial immunity when performing the task that led to the alleged injury. If the court uses a functional analysis test, the focus is on whether the officer was making policy or performing a routine decision. If immunity is denied, the next issue is whether the officer or agent was negligent and whether the negligence was simple, gross, or willful. Under State tort law, liability for negligence in probation or parole liability cases is imposed only if the negligence was gross or willful. If gross or willful negligence was involved, the next inquiry is whether the good-faith defense applies. States vary in their rules on immunity, and judicial decisions are sometimes inconsistent. Thus, advising probation or parole officers is difficulty. Officers should be familiar with the standards used by courts in their jurisdiction and should carefully comply with those standards. In cases of doubt, officers should follow their superiors' orders and document their actions. 65 reference notes and 2 references