People v. Bratton, 8 N.Y.3d 637 (2007)
A parole officer does not have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for a parole violation, even if the violation occurs in the officer’s presence; a warrant must be issued by a member of the Parole Board or a designated officer of the Division of Parole.
Summary
Larry Bratton was convicted of resisting arrest after his parole officer arrested him without a warrant for failing to comply with an order to submit to a urine test. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that parole officers lack the statutory authority to make warrantless arrests for parole violations, even those occurring in their presence. The Court emphasized that the Executive Law requires a warrant issued by a member of the Parole Board or a designated officer for such arrests. This decision clarifies the limits on parole officers’ powers and underscores the importance of adherence to statutory procedures in effecting arrests for parole violations.
Facts
Larry Bratton, on parole, was subject to conditions including home visits and drug testing. Parole officers Wijkowski and Jones visited Bratton’s apartment to conduct a drug test. Bratton initially resisted the test. After a brief exchange, Bratton physically pushed past officer Jones. Wijkowski, who had stepped outside to retrieve the test kit, witnessed the interaction and arrested Bratton for a parole violation based on his failure to comply with the order to submit to the urine test. Bratton struggled with the officers during the arrest.
Procedural History
Bratton was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. The City Court found him guilty of resisting arrest, rejecting his argument that the arrest was unlawful due to the lack of a warrant. County Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a warrant was not required when the violation occurred in the parole officer’s presence. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a parole officer is authorized to make a warrantless arrest of a parolee for a violation of parole when the alleged violation occurs in the parole officer’s presence.
Holding
No, because the Executive Law § 259-i(3)(a)(i) and its implementing regulations do not authorize parole officers to make warrantless arrests for parole violations, even if committed in their presence; a warrant must be issued by a member of the Parole Board or a designated officer of the Division.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the specific statutory procedure outlined in Executive Law § 259-i(3)(a)(i) and 9 NYCRR 8004.2, which requires a parole officer to report a suspected parole violation to a member of the Parole Board or a designated officer, who may then issue a warrant. The Court highlighted that the Legislature had previously granted parole officers the power to make warrantless arrests for parole violations but subsequently repealed those provisions. The Court stated, “[T]he statute and the Division’s implementing regulations do not vest parole officers with the power to make warrantless arrests for parole violations even if committed in their presence. A member of the Board or a designated officer of the Division must issue a warrant.” The Court distinguished the powers of probation officers, who are authorized to make warrantless arrests for probation violations under CPL 410.50(4), noting the absence of comparable language in the Executive Law governing parole violations. The Court also rejected the argument that CPL 140.25(1)(a), which allows a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest for an offense committed in their presence, applied, as Bratton was arrested for failing to submit to a urine test, which is not an “offense” as defined by Penal Law § 10.00(1). Wijkowski did not claim to have arrested defendant for a parole violation, that would independently justify a peace officer in making a warrantless arrest if committed in his presence.