Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 — NE Code / Chapter 29 / Section 29-2266
View Statute 29-2266
Status: in_force

For purposes of sections 29-2266.01 to 29-2266.03 :

(1) Absconding supervision means a probationer has purposely avoided supervision for a period of at least two weeks and reasonable efforts by probation officers and staff to locate the probationer in person have proven unsuccessful;

(2) Administrative sanction means an additional probation requirement imposed upon a probationer by his or her probation officer, with the full knowledge and consent of the probationer, designed to hold the probationer accountable for violations of conditions of probation, including, but not limited to:

(a) Counseling or reprimand by his or her probation officer;

(b) Increased supervision contact requirements;

(c) Increased substance abuse testing;

(d) Referral for substance abuse or mental health evaluation or other specialized assessment, counseling, or treatment;

(e) Imposition of a designated curfew for a period not to exceed thirty days;

(f) Community service for a specified number of hours pursuant to sections 29-2277 to 29-2279 ;

(g) Travel restrictions to stay within his or her county of residence or employment unless otherwise permitted by the supervising probation officer; and

(h) Restructuring court-imposed financial obligations to mitigate their effect on the probationer;

(3) Custodial sanction means an additional probation requirement imposed upon a probationer designed to hold the probationer accountable for a violation of a condition of probation. A custodial sanction may include up to thirty days in jail as the most severe response and may include up to three days in jail as the second most severe response;

(4)(a) Noncriminal violation means a probationer's activities or behaviors which create the opportunity for re-offending or diminish the effectiveness of probation supervision resulting in a violation of an original condition of probation, including:

(i) Moving traffic violations;

(ii) Failure to report to his or her probation officer;

(iii) Leaving the jurisdiction of the court or leaving the state without the permission of the court or his or her probation officer;

(iv) Failure to work regularly or attend training or school;

(v) Failure to notify his or her probation officer of change of address or employment;

(vi) Frequenting places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;

(vii) Failure to perform community service as directed; and

(viii) Failure to pay fines, court costs, restitution, or any fees imposed pursuant to section 29-2262.06 as directed; and

(b) Noncriminal violation does not include absconding supervision; and

(5) Substance abuse violation means a probationer's activities or behaviors associated with the use of chemical substances or related treatment services resulting in a violation of an original condition of probation, including:

(a) Positive breath test for the consumption of alcohol if the offender is required to refrain from alcohol consumption;

(b) Positive urinalysis for the illegal use of drugs;

(c) Failure to report for alcohol testing or drug testing; and

(d) Failure to appear for or complete substance abuse or mental health treatment evaluations or inpatient or outpatient treatment.

Laws 1971, LB 680, § 21;

Laws 2003, LB 46, § 11;

Laws 2015, LB605, § 69;

Laws 2016, LB1094, § 19.

Where a complete record of the evidence and testimony is made at a probation revocation hearing, the court is not required to specify which particular evidence, exhibits, or witnesses were relied on for its judgment. State v. Jaworski, 194 Neb. 645, 234 N.W.2d 221 (1975).

Where a complete record of the evidence and testimony is made at a probation revocation hearing, the court is not required to specify which particular evidence, exhibits, or witnesses were relied on for its judgment. State v. Jaworski, 194 Neb. 645, 234 N.W.2d 221 (1975).

A written report from the probation officer is not a jurisdictional requirement in a probation revocation proceeding. State v. Kartman, 192 Neb. 803, 224 N.W.2d 753 (1975).

A written report from the probation officer is not a jurisdictional requirement in a probation revocation proceeding. State v. Kartman, 192 Neb. 803, 224 N.W.2d 753 (1975).

Where errors in state probation revocation proceedings were not prejudicial to the probationer, he was not entitled to federal habeas corpus. Kartman v. Parratt, 397 F.Supp. 531 (D. Neb. 1975).

Where errors in state probation revocation proceedings were not prejudicial to the probationer, he was not entitled to federal habeas corpus. Kartman v. Parratt, 397 F.Supp. 531 (D. Neb. 1975).