11 Del. C. § 4334

Arrest for violation of conditions; subsequent disposition [Effective July 1, 2026]

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation or suspension of sentence, or a notice to appear to answer to a charge of violation. Such notice shall be personally served upon the probationer. The warrant shall authorize officers to return the probationer to the custody of the court or to the Department.

(b) The Commissioner, or any probation officer, when in the Commissioner’s or probation officer’s judgment there has been a violation of any condition of probation or suspension of sentence, may arrest such probationer without a warrant, or may deputize any other officer with power of arrest to do so by giving that officer a written statement setting forth that the probationer has, in the judgment of the Commissioner or probation officer, violated the conditions of probation or suspended sentence. The written statement delivered with the probationer by the arresting officer to the official in charge of the place of detention shall be sufficient warrant for the detention of the probationer. When an arrest is made by a probation officer, the Department shall present to the detaining authority a written statement of the circumstances of violation.

(c) Upon such arrest and detention, the Department shall immediately notify the court and shall submit in writing a report showing in what manner the probationer has violated the conditions of probation or suspension of sentence. Thereupon, or upon arrest by warrant as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the court shall cause the probationer to be brought before it without unnecessary delay, for a hearing on the violation charge. The hearing may be informal or summary. If the violation is established, the court may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, and may require the probation violator to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.

(d) Notwithstanding any provision of subsection (c) of this section or any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the Department is authorized to administratively resolve technical and minor violations of the conditions of probation or supervision at Accountability Levels I, II, III or IV when a sanction less restrictive than Level V is being sought by the Department as a result of the violation, and is further authorized to administratively resolve technical and minor violations of conditions of probation at Accountability Levels I, II, III, or IV by placing the probationer at Accountability Level IV for a period of not more than 5 days consecutively, and not more than 10 days in any 1 calendar year, or on home confinement for a period of not more than 10 days consecutively, and not more than 20 days per calendar year. The Department shall adopt written procedures providing for administrative review for all cases in which an offender is placed at Level IV or home confinement pursuant to this subsection. All administrative dispositions imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be documented in the offender’s record and shall be made available to the court in the event of a subsequent violation which is considered by the court. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “technical and minor violations of the conditions of probation or supervision” shall not include arrests or convictions for new criminal offenses. Under this section, the purpose of home confinement is to reduce the number of persons held at Level V and Level IV facilities by substituting home confinement when appropriate. The Department shall develop guidelines for probation officers to assist them in providing consistent and appropriate responses to compliance and violations of the conditions of probation or supervision.

(e) A probationer for whose return a warrant cannot be served, shall be deemed a fugitive from justice or to have fled from justice. If it shall appear that probationer has violated probation or suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether the time from issuing of the warrant to the date of the probationer’s arrest, or any part of it, shall be counted as time served on probation or suspended sentence.

(f) The Justice of the Peace Court shall have jurisdiction over violations of probation where such probation or suspension of sentence was pursuant to an order of the Justice of the Peace Court.

11 Del. C. 1953, § 4335; 54 Del. Laws, c. 349, § 7; 66 Del. Laws, c. 133, § 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 442, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 74 Del. Laws, c. 27, § 5; 74 Del. Laws, c. 322, § 4; 78 Del. Laws, c. 392, § 6; 84 Del. Laws, c. 473, § 15; 85 Del. Laws, c. 61, § 1; 85 Del. Laws, c. 62, § 106;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 153 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Kurzmann v. State

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kurzmann v. State (2006) del “11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 38 . 897 A.2d 159 .”

Johnson v. State (2005) del · cites it 2× “See 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (establishing that a VOP hearing may be informal or summary).”

State v. Sloman (2005) del “This constitutes a seven month time period when Sloman would have been incarcerated under the terms of the original sentence.”

Weaver v. State (2001) del “2d 868, 869 (1989); 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 21 . Gamble v. State, Del.”

Holland v. Taylor (2009) ded · cites it 2× “50) Plaintiff claims that his sanction of 14 days at CVOP is in violation of Delaware law, 11 Del. C. § 4334(d), which reads, in pertinent part: [T]he Department is authorized to administratively resolve technical and minor violations of the conditions of probation or…”

United States v. Dahl (2014) paed “11 Del. C. § 4334(b). Pursuant to § 4321, the Delaware Department of Corrections, of which the Office of Probation and Parole is a part, has adopted the following regulations governing warrantless searches by its probation officers: The [probation] officer and supervisor will…”

Hoover v. Snyder (1995) ded “11 Del.C. § 4334(c). When the twenty-nine days that petitioner spent in pretrial detention awaiting the November 4, 1992 hearing, are added to the “two months and four days” that he spent in pre-trial detention awaiting the violation of probation hearing, it is clear that…”

Lloyd v. State (2023) del · cites it 3× “18 See 11 Del. C. § 4334(b) (providing, in relevant part, that “[t]he Commissioner, or any probation officer, when in the Commissioner’s or probation officer’s judgment there has been a violation of any condition of probation or suspension of sentence, may arrest such…”

State Ex Rel. Colatriano v. Colatriano (1972) delsuperct “11 Del.C. § 4334. Second, even if the lower court’s probationary powers are of longer duration than the one year maximum sentence, the record does not show that defendant was, in fact, placed on probation.”

Thompson v. State (2016) del · cites it 2× “8 11 Del. C. § 4334(¢) (supp. 2016). the balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the underlying drug conviction.”

Woods v. State (2018) del · cites it 2× “6 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 2 as the defendant is given credit for all incarceration previously served,7 and the subsequent sentence does not exceed a term left suspended by the prior sentence.”

Cook v. State (2019) del · cites it 2× “6 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 4 corrected. The Superior Court acted within its sentencing discretion when imposing the TASC and TAD conditions.”

Show all 153 citing cases →

— 11 Del. C. § 4334(0) — 3 cases

Taylor v. State (2014) del

Thompson v. State (2016) del “8 11 Del. C. § 4334(¢) (supp. 2016). the balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the underlying drug conviction.”

Watts v. State (2015) del

— 11 Del. C. § 4334(b) — 5 cases

Lloyd v. State (2023) del “18 See 11 Del. C. § 4334(b) (providing, in relevant part, that “[t]he Commissioner, or any probation officer, when in the Commissioner’s or probation officer’s judgment there has been a violation of any condition of probation or suspension of sentence, may arrest such…”

State of Delaware v. McNeill. (2015) delsuperct

KOSTYSHYN v. Kearney (2005) ded

Mitchell v. State (2015) del

— 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) — 143 cases

Kurzmann v. State (2006) del “11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 38 . 897 A.2d 159 .”

Johnson v. State (2005) del “See 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (establishing that a VOP hearing may be informal or summary).”

State v. Sloman (2005) del “This constitutes a seven month time period when Sloman would have been incarcerated under the terms of the original sentence.”

Weaver v. State (2001) del “2d 868, 869 (1989); 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 21 . Gamble v. State, Del.”

— 11 Del. C. § 4334(d) — 2 cases

Holland v. Taylor (2009) ded “50) Plaintiff claims that his sanction of 14 days at CVOP is in violation of Delaware law, 11 Del. C. § 4334(d), which reads, in pertinent part: [T]he Department is authorized to administratively resolve technical and minor violations of the conditions of probation or…”

KOSTYSHYN v. Kearney (2005) ded

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.