Sec. 1. (a) A court or division of a court authorized to
impose probation shall appoint one (1) or more probation officers,
depending on the needs of the court, except that two (2) or more
divisions within a court, two (2) or more courts within a county, or two
(2) or more courts not in the same county may jointly appoint and
employ one (1) or more probation officers for the purpose of meeting
the requirements of this section.
(b) A person may be appointed as a probation officer after the
effective date established by the judicial conference of Indiana only if
that person meets the minimum employment qualifications adopted by
the conference, except that this requirement does not apply to any
person certified as a qualified probation officer before that effective
date. Any uncertified person appointed as a probation officer after the
effective date who fails to successfully complete the written
examination established under section 8 of this chapter within six (6)
months after the date of the person's appointment is prohibited from
exercising the powers of a probation officer as granted by law.
(c) Probation officers shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing
court and are directly responsible to and subject to the orders of the
court. The amount and time of payment of salaries of probation officers
shall be fixed by the county, city, or town fiscal body in accordance
with the salary schedule adopted by the county, city, or town fiscal
body under IC 36-2-16.5. The salary of a probation officer shall be paid
out of the county, city, or town treasury by the county auditor or city
controller. Probation officers are entitled to their actual expenses
necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties. Probation
officers shall give a bond if the court so directs in a sum to be fixed by
the court.
(d) A court, or two (2) or more courts acting jointly, may designate
a probation officer to direct and supervise the work of the probation
department.
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.6. Amended by Acts
1980, P.L.89, SEC.1; P.L.277-2003, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
Laskowski v. Mears, 600 F. Supp. 1568 (N.D. Ind. 1985).
Laskowski v. Mears, 600 F. Supp. 1568 (N.D. Ind. 1985).
· cites it 12× “5-8 further directs that such personnel shall serve at the pleasure of the senior judge of the division.”
Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code Ann. § 11-13-1-1 (West 1982). One of the duties of probation officers is to notify the court when a violation of a condition of probation occurs.”
Shakur Johnson v. State of Indiana, 117 N.E.3d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “The court cited Indiana Code section 11-13-1-1 (2003) which sets forth the appointment, qualifications, responsibilities, and salary of probation officers and states that probation officers "shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing court and are directly responsible to and…”
Randy L. Thornton v. Matthew Pietrzak, Stephanie Buttz, Eric Lee, & Dianna Johnson, 120 N.E.3d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" Ind. Code § 11-13-1-1 (c). Pursuant to statute, probation officers have mandatory duties, including, to "notify the court when a violation of a condition of probation occurs" *1144 and to "keep accurate records of cases investigated by [them] and of all cases assigned to…”
Atkins v. State, 546 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “CODE § 11-13-1-1 et seq. (1988) in order to exercise the powers of a probation officer as granted by law; and (2) whether it was error for the trial court to revoke Atkins’ probation based upon a violation of the condition requiring permission before leaving the premises of the…”
Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F. Supp. 764 (N.D. Ind. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Ind.Code § 11-13-1-1 directs that “probation officers shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing court and are directly responsible to and subject to the order of the court”.”
Hendricks Cnty., Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green, 120 N.E.3d 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “The trial court reached this conclusion holding that "The Hendricks County Courts, and not [the County] (fiscal body), sets the salary and controls the terms, condition, and privileges of Probation Officers.”
Blackwell v. Cook, 570 F. Supp. 474 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
· cites it 2× “1983) 4 The nature of the judge-probation officer relationship, as seen in Ind.Code § 11-13-1-1 et seq., shows that it is essential to the decision-making process.”
Larson v. Cantrell, 974 F. Supp. 1211 (N.D. Ind. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Indiana statutory provisions besides the one the parties have" focused on (section 33-5-29.”
Klunk v. Cnty. Of St. Joseph, 170 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 1999).
“…judge of the Probate Court, Judge Nemeth has firing authority over the staff of the Juvenile Probation Department. Ind.Code 11-13-1-1(c)”
Kujawski v. Bd. of Commissioners, 999 F. Supp. 1234 (S.D. Ind. 1998).
· cites it 2× “There is also the further complication of the Department’s connection to the Bartholomew County judiciary.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-1-1(b) — 1 case
Atkins v. State, 546 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
“CODE § 11-13-1-1 et seq. (1988) in order to exercise the powers of a probation officer as granted by law; and (2) whether it was error for the trial court to revoke Atkins’ probation based upon a violation of the condition requiring permission before leaving the premises of the…”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-1-1(c) — 4 cases
Laskowski v. Mears, 600 F. Supp. 1568 (N.D. Ind. 1985).
“5-8 further directs that such personnel shall serve at the pleasure of the senior judge of the division.”
Hendricks Cnty., Indiana v. Gwyn L. Green, 120 N.E.3d 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“The trial court reached this conclusion holding that "The Hendricks County Courts, and not [the County] (fiscal body), sets the salary and controls the terms, condition, and privileges of Probation Officers.”
Klunk v. Cnty. Of St. Joseph, 170 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 1999).
“…judge of the Probate Court, Judge Nemeth has firing authority over the staff of the Juvenile Probation Department. Ind.Code 11-13-1-1(c)”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-1-1(e) — 1 case
Laskowski v. Mears, 600 F. Supp. 1568 (N.D. Ind. 1985).
“5-8 further directs that such personnel shall serve at the pleasure of the senior judge of the division.”
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.