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 makes a series of changes to North Dakota’s criminal supervision and court-cost statutes. It revises parole revocation procedures, including warrant issuance, suspension of parole time while a warrant is outstanding, preliminary hearing requirements, custody options pending final revocation, and the ability to charge an absconded parolee for return costs. It also adds a statutory definition of “absconded” that applies to probationers, parolees, pretrial services participants, and prosecution-led diversion participants who willfully avoid supervision or fail to report.
The bill further updates probation law by expanding and clarifying supervision tools, conditions of probation, and revocation procedures. It authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to use risk assessments to set supervision levels and individualized case plans, reinforces firearm and dangerous-weapon restrictions, and preserves a range of intermediate sanctions such as community service, electronic monitoring, sobriety monitoring, short jail sanctions, and intensive supervision. It also revises restitution and indigent-defense reimbursement provisions, including notice and hearing rights, collection procedures, and the use of assigned work in lieu of payment when a defendant cannot pay. Finally, it requires a legislative management study during the 2025-26 interim on court fines and fees, including collection rates, administrative costs, practices in other states, and impacts on defendants.
HB 1417 amends multiple sections of the North Dakota Century Code affecting parole administration, probation supervision, restitution, and indigent defense cost recovery. It gives the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the parole board more explicit authority over absconding, return costs, supervision planning, and intermediate sanctions, while also refining court authority to impose and collect supervision fees, restitution, and reimbursement for appointed counsel. The bill also changes the definition of “dangerous weapon” for criminal law purposes and directs a study that could lead to future legislation on court fines and fees.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing the House 73-20 and the Senate 40-7. The vote totals suggest general agreement with the bill’s overall approach of tightening supervision rules and clarifying fee and restitution procedures, while still preserving due process protections such as notice, hearings, and written findings. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate, but the final votes indicate the measure was not especially controversial overall.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s fee and cost provisions, including supervision fees, restitution collection, indigent-defense reimbursement, and the authority to seek civil recovery from defendants who may later have funds. Another possible area of concern is the expanded use of risk assessments and intermediate sanctions in probation management, as well as the authority to charge absconded parolees for return costs. Supporters likely view these provisions as accountability and administrative-efficiency measures, while opponents may see them as increasing financial burdens on defendants and expanding correctional control.