[directive] This directive outlines the procedure for the · prosecution of violations of conditions of pretrial release as referenced in 3:26-2, · which establishes, among other things, two types of R.  (1) violations filed by the State proceedings for violations of conditions of pretrial release: seeking revocation of pretrial release, and (2) violations filed by the State or the court on its own motion seeking modification of conditions of release.  Although violations of conditions of pretrial release are new proceedings under Criminal in similar types of proceedings has previously been Justice Reform, the role of the prosecutor considered.  Specifically, on July 11, 1966, then Administrative Director [...] issued Directive #34A-65, which established that Prosecutors, not Probation Officers, are responsible for the prosecution of defendants charged with violating the terms of their probation.  Thereafter, in 2006, the issue was once again revisited due to considerable variation in vicinage practice with respect to the prosecution of violations of probation (VOPs).  In some counties, the Prosecutor was involved in VOP proceedings, while in others Probation staff was handling all of Criminal Presiding Judges and aspects of the VOP process.  As a result, the Conferences Vicinage Chief Probation Officers reviewed the practice at that time and concluded that the policy contained in the 1966 Directive should be reaffirmed.  The Criminal Presiding Judges reasoned that because a VOP involves a violation of court ordered conditions, it is akin to contempt for violating a court order, and since the Prosecutor represents the State's interest at contempt proceedings, the same should hold true for VOP proceedings.  The Presiding Criminal Judges also reasoned that the Prosecutor has a fundamental role at VOP proceedings to represent the interests of the State and the victim(s), and that the Probation Officer ought not to act as both witness and prosecutor.  At the direction of the Supreme Court, then Acting Administrative Director [...] on April 7, 2006 issued Directive #04-06 restating the substance of the earlier directive.  The same reasoning holds true for violations of conditions of pretrial release.  Conditions of pretrial release are set via court order; therefore, violations of these conditions are likewise akin to contempt proceedings.  Since the prosecutor represents the State's interest at both contempt and VOP proceedings, the same should hold true for violations of conditions of pretrial release filed pursuant to R. 3:26-2.  During the pretrial phase of a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor plays a vital role in representing the interest of the State and victims during the pretrial process.  Further, as in the case of VOP proceedings, Pretrial Services Officers should not be required to act as both the witness and the prosecutor during violations of conditions of I. pretrial release proceedings.  Therefore, to ensure statewide consistency, it must follow that I County Prosecutors, and not Pretrial Services Officers, are responsible for the prosecution of violations of conditions of pretrial release filed pursuant to 3:26-2.  R.  Questions regarding this directive or the procedure for violations of conditions of pretrial release may be directed to [...], Assistant Director for Criminal Practice, by email at [...] or by phone at [...].