AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 12-59-15 and 12.1-01-04, subdivision b of subsection 3 of section 12.1-22-01, and sections 12.1-32-07, 12.1-32-08, and 29-07-01.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to parole and probation violations and court fees; to provide for a legislative management study; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1417 revises North Dakota law governing parole and probation violations, court-imposed supervision conditions, restitution, and reimbursement of indigent defense costs. On the parole side, the bill clarifies the arrest-and-hearing process for alleged parole violations, suspends the running of parole time when a warrant issues, and authorizes the parole board to require an absconding parolee to pay the costs of being returned to supervision. It also adds a statutory definition of “absconded” that applies to probationers, parolees, pretrial services participants, and prosecution-led diversion participants.
On probation and sentencing, the bill updates the definition of “dangerous weapon,” authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to use risk assessments for defendants under its supervision, and preserves a broad list of possible probation conditions, including community service, electronic monitoring, sobriety programming, and short jail sanctions. It also revises restitution procedures, including notice, hearing, and enforcement rules, and allows assigned work to be used in lieu of fines, supervision fees, indigent defense reimbursement, or restitution in limited circumstances. The bill further amends the indigent defense statute to require notice and hearing procedures for reimbursement orders, allow civil recovery of defense costs, and direct application fees into the indigent defense administration fund.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily procedural and financial: it expands and clarifies supervision and revocation authority, formalizes risk-based supervision tools, and strengthens mechanisms for collecting court-ordered financial obligations. It also creates a legislative management study for the 2025-26 interim on court fines and fees, including travel permits, presentence investigations, drug court, electronic monitoring, alcohol monitoring, and the 24/7 sobriety program, with attention to collection rates, collection costs, practices in other states, and effects on defendants.
Overall sentiment appears favorable, as reflected by strong bipartisan passage in both chambers, though not unanimously. The House and Senate votes indicate substantial support for the bill’s corrections and court-administration changes, suggesting broad agreement on tightening supervision rules and reviewing fee practices.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s financial and enforcement provisions, especially mandatory supervision fees, restitution collection, reimbursement of indigent defense costs, and the use of short incarceration or other sanctions as probation tools. Potential concerns also include the expanded authority to impose costs on absconding supervisees and the broader use of risk assessments in supervision decisions, which may raise fairness, due process, and ability-to-pay issues.
HB 1417 amends multiple sections of the North Dakota Century Code affecting parole revocation, probation supervision, criminal definitions, restitution, and indigent defense reimbursement. It gives the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the parole board clearer authority over hearings, custody decisions, cost recovery, and supervision conditions, while also updating the definition of “absconded” and “dangerous weapon” for use across criminal law. The bill additionally changes how courts assess, notice, and collect restitution and defense-cost reimbursement, and it creates a continuing appropriation for the indigent defense administration fund.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support from lawmakers, as shown by strong passage margins in both chambers and final enactment. The vote totals suggest that most legislators agreed with the bill’s corrections-management and court-fee reforms, while a meaningful minority opposed it, likely reflecting concern about the bill’s financial burdens and enforcement mechanisms.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s fee and cost provisions, including mandatory supervision fees, restitution collection costs, and reimbursement of indigent defense expenses. Critics may also object to expanded sanctions for probation violations, the ability to charge absconding supervisees for return costs, and the use of risk assessments to set supervision levels. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor stronger supervision tools, clearer revocation procedures, and a study of court fines and fees to evaluate whether current practices are effective and fair.