Michael Brandt Gets Probation Violation Dismissed
Mike’s client was on probation in Anoka County for a Criminal Sexual Conduct case. Mike’s client had been living in Texas, and, after a failed polygraph examination, Mike’s client’s Texas probation officer violated him, requiring Mike’s client to return to Minnesota for a probation violation hearing.
Mike’s client’s probation violation was based on a violation of the Texas rules of probation and not his Minnesota rules of probation. This violation was imposed under what is commonly known as the Interstate Compact. The Interstate Compact governs, among other things, the transfer of probation for an offender who desires to move to one state after being placed on probation in another state.
In this case, Mike’s client did not violate any terms of his Minnesota probation. Instead, he was alleged to have violated a term of his Texas probation, which in turn violated his Minnesota probation.
Mike went to work researching the rules of the Interstate Compact as well as Minnesota case law governing the rules of probation. Mike’s research revealed that his client could not be found guilty of the violation his client was alleged to have committed because the term of probation allegedly violated was not imposed by the court. Instead, it was imposed through the Interstate Compact.
Mike had numerous discussions with the prosecutor and Mike’s client’s probation officer about the alleged violation. After explaining the findings of his research, the prosecutor and probation officer both agreed that they had no case and agreed to dismiss the probation violation.
This case goes to show how hiring an attorney with a thorough understanding of the complexities of the Interstate Compact and Minnesota case law can have a dramatic effect on a case.