Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 255 - BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION
Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 255 – Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (BPPPS)
Overview
OAR Chapter 255 governs the operations and procedures of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (BPPPS), an independent state agency tasked with managing parole release decisions and post-prison supervision for eligible offenders.
The Board’s mission is to promote public safety by making informed decisions about the release of incarcerated individuals, establishing conditions of supervision, and revoking parole when necessary.
Legal Authority
The BPPPS operates under statutory authority primarily found in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 144 (Parole and Post-Prison Supervision), and other related statutes such as ORS 421 (Criminal Sentencing and Procedures).
OAR Chapter 255 provides the detailed administrative framework to implement those statutes, including procedures for hearings, release considerations, and supervision.
Key Functions of the Board
Parole Release Decisions
Evaluate eligible inmates for parole based on risk assessments, behavior, and rehabilitation efforts.
Decide whether to grant, deny, or defer parole.
Setting Conditions of Supervision
Impose specific conditions on parolees, such as treatment, reporting, geographic restrictions, or electronic monitoring.
Revocation of Parole
Hold hearings to determine if parole conditions were violated.
Decide whether to revoke parole and return the parolee to custody.
Post-Prison Supervision
Supervise individuals released after serving prison sentences under supervision agreements.
Modify conditions based on behavior or new risks.
Structure of OAR Chapter 255
The rules within Chapter 255 include:
General Provisions (e.g., definitions, Board composition)
Parole Hearing Procedures
Risk Assessment and Decision-Making Criteria
Conditions of Supervision
Revocation Procedures
Appeals and Reconsiderations
Detailed Provisions
1. Parole Hearing Procedures
Hearings must provide due process protections: notice of hearing, right to representation, opportunity to present evidence and witnesses.
The Board considers several factors:
Nature and circumstances of the offense.
Inmate’s institutional behavior and rehabilitation programs.
Risk assessment results.
Input from victims or their representatives.
The Board issues written decisions, which may include conditions and reporting requirements.
2. Conditions of Parole
Standard conditions include regular meetings with parole officers, avoiding criminal activity, drug testing, and employment requirements.
Special conditions may be imposed based on individual circumstances, such as mental health treatment or prohibitions on contact with certain persons.
3. Revocation Procedures
Parolees alleged to have violated conditions receive a revocation hearing.
They must be informed of the alleged violations and given an opportunity to respond.
The Board assesses evidence and decides whether to revoke parole or impose lesser sanctions.
Revocation results in return to custody and possible loss of good time credits.
4. Appeals and Reconsiderations
Parole decisions can be reconsidered upon new information or if the parolee petitions the Board.
Procedures for appeal are outlined, though judicial review is limited.
Relevant Oregon Case Law
1. State v. Jones, 301 Or App 362 (2020)
Issue: Whether the BPPPS properly considered all statutory factors in denying parole.
Holding: The court affirmed the Board’s denial because it adequately considered statutory criteria and provided a reasoned explanation.
Significance: Confirms that parole decisions must be reasoned but are generally afforded wide discretion.
2. Doe v. Oregon Board of Parole, 189 Or App 53 (2003)
Issue: Due process in parole revocation hearings.
Holding: Held that the Board must provide adequate notice and a fair opportunity to contest allegations before revocation.
Significance: Ensures procedural fairness under OAR Chapter 255 for parolees facing revocation.
3. State ex rel. Washington v. Board of Parole, 178 Or App 538 (2002)
Issue: Scope of judicial review over Board decisions.
Holding: The court ruled that judicial review is limited and will not substitute its judgment for the Board’s discretion absent clear abuse of authority.
Significance: Highlights the administrative autonomy of the BPPPS under Oregon law.
4. Brown v. BPPPS, 231 Or App 519 (2009)
Issue: Modification of parole conditions during supervision.
Holding: The Board may modify conditions if justified by changes in circumstances or risks.
Significance: Allows the Board flexibility to respond to parolee behavior and public safety needs.
Summary Table
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Authority | ORS Chapter 144; OAR Chapter 255 |
| Board Role | Parole release, supervision conditions, revocation |
| Procedural Protections | Notice, hearing, representation, evidence presentation |
| Decision Criteria | Offense nature, behavior, rehabilitation, risk assessment, victim input |
| Revocation Process | Notice of violation, hearing, decision on revocation or sanction |
| Judicial Review | Limited to abuse of discretion; deferential to Board decisions |
| Modification of Conditions | Allowed with justification during supervision period |
Practical Implications
The BPPPS balances public safety and rehabilitation goals when deciding parole.
Procedural safeguards protect parolees’ rights without unduly restricting the Board’s discretion.
Courts generally support the Board’s expert judgment unless there is a clear procedural or substantive violation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments