(a) At any time during the period of probation or conditional discharge, the court or any judge thereof may issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant for violation of any of the conditions of probation or conditional discharge, or may issue a notice to appear to answer to a charge of such violation, which notice shall be personally served upon the defendant. Any such warrant shall authorize all officers named therein to return the defendant to the custody of the court or to any suitable detention facility designated by the court. Whenever a probation officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a condition of such person's probation, such probation officer may notify any police officer that such person has, in such officer's judgment, violated the conditions of such person's probation and such notice shall be sufficient warrant for the police officer to arrest such person and return such person to the custody of the court or to any suitable detention facility designated by the court. Whenever a probation officer so notifies a police officer, the probation officer shall notify the victim of the offense for which such person is on probation, and any victim advocate assigned to assist the victim, provided the probation officer has been provided with the name and contact information for such victim or victim advocate. Any probation officer may arrest any defendant on probation without a warrant or may deputize any other officer with power to arrest to do so by giving such other officer a written statement setting forth that the defendant has, in the judgment of the probation officer, violated the conditions of the defendant's probation. Such written statement, delivered with the defendant by the arresting officer to the official in charge of any correctional center or other place of detention, shall be sufficient warrant for the detention of the defendant. After making such an arrest, such probation officer shall present to the detaining authorities a similar statement of the circumstances of violation. Provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to any defendant arrested under the provisions of this section. Upon such arrest and detention, the probation officer shall immediately so notify the court or any judge thereof.

(b) When the defendant is presented for arraignment on the charge of violation of any of the conditions of probation or conditional discharge, the court shall review any conditions previously imposed on the defendant and may order, as a condition of the pretrial release of the defendant, that the defendant comply with any or all of such conditions in addition to any conditions imposed pursuant to section 54-64a. Unless the court, pursuant to subsection (c) of section 54-64a, orders that the defendant remain under the supervision of a probation officer or other designated person or organization, the defendant shall be supervised by the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch in accordance with subsection (a) of section 54-63b.

(c) Upon notification by the probation officer of the arrest of the defendant or upon an arrest by warrant as herein provided, the court shall cause the defendant to be brought before it without unnecessary delay for a hearing on the violation charges. At such hearing the defendant shall be informed of the manner in which such defendant is alleged to have violated the conditions of such defendant's probation or conditional discharge, shall be advised by the court that such defendant has the right to retain counsel and, if indigent, shall be entitled to the services of the public defender, and shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence in such defendant's own behalf. Unless good cause is shown, a charge of violation of any of the conditions of probation or conditional discharge shall be disposed of or scheduled for a hearing not later than one hundred twenty days after the defendant is arraigned on such charge.

(d) If such violation is established, the court may: (1) Continue the sentence of probation or conditional discharge; (2) modify or enlarge the conditions of probation or conditional discharge; (3) extend the period of probation or conditional discharge, provided the original period with any extensions shall not exceed the periods authorized by section 53a-29; or (4) revoke the sentence of probation or conditional discharge. If such sentence is revoked, the court shall require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or impose any lesser sentence. Any such lesser sentence may include a term of imprisonment, all or a portion of which may be suspended entirely or after a period set by the court, followed by a period of probation with such conditions as the court may establish. No such revocation shall be ordered, except upon consideration of the whole record and unless such violation is established by the introduction of reliable and probative evidence and by a preponderance of the evidence.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 32; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 12; P.A. 86-403, S. 89, 132; P.A. 95-142, S. 7; P.A. 98-130; P.A. 99-187, S. 4; P.A. 08-102, S. 7; P.A. 10-43, S. 20; P.A. 12-114, S. 14; P.A. 13-214, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act clarified Subsec. (b) to specify that lesser sentence may be imposed when a sentence is revoked; P.A. 86-403 made technical change in Subsec. (b), substituting “conditional discharge” for “conditional release”; P.A. 95-142 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision re the arrest and return of a sexual offender who has violated the conditions of his probation by failing to notify his probation officer of a change of address and amended Subsec. (b) to rephrase provisions, insert Subdiv. indicators, add Subdiv. (3) authorizing an extension of the period of probation or conditional discharge and prohibit revocation of probation or conditional discharge unless a violation is established “by the introduction of reliable and probative evidence and by a preponderance of the evidence” rather than by “reliable and probative evidence”; P.A. 98-130 amended Subsec. (b) to add provision that any lesser sentence imposed upon revocation may include a term of imprisonment followed by a period of probation; P.A. 99-187 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision authorizing a probation officer to place a defendant who, in such officer's judgment, has violated the conditions of such defendant's probation in the zero-tolerance drug supervision program in lieu of returning such defendant to court for violation of probation proceedings and to make technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality; P.A. 08-102 added new Subsec. (b) re court review of previously imposed conditions, court-ordered pretrial release conditions and supervising authority for defendant, designated existing provisions re hearing on violation charges as Subsec. (c) and amended same to make a technical change and add requirement that a charge of violation be disposed of or scheduled for a hearing not later than 120 days after arraignment, and redesignated existing Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (d); P.A. 10-43 amended Subsec. (a) to delete provision authorizing probation officer to place defendant who has violated conditions of probation in zero-tolerance drug supervision program and to authorize probation officer to notify police officer whenever probation officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a condition of such person's probation, rather than only when a sexual offender has violated the conditions of such person's probation by failing to notify probation officer of any change of such person's residence address; P.A. 12-114 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision re probation officer to notify victim when probation officer notifies a police officer of a probation violation; P.A. 13-214 amended Subsec. (a) to add provisions requiring probation officer to notify victim advocate assigned to assist victim when probation officer notifies a police officer of a probation violation.

See Sec. 54-108c re availability on Internet of information on outstanding arrest warrants for probation violations.

Cited. 165 C. 73. Defendant's right to counsel hereunder is of “constitutional dimension”, and tests of competency are met; order of probation revocation was upheld where defendant moved from receiving state of Maine to Massachusetts without reporting to Connecticut parole authorities and was convicted of possession of drugs in Massachusetts. 167 C. 639. Cited. 169 C. 223; 170 C. 118. In determining issue of “unnecessary delay”, principles applicable to sixth amendment “speedy trial” determinations may be considered. 192 C. 321. Cited. 193 C. 35; 195 C. 461; 204 C. 52; 207 C. 152; Id., 565; 219 C. 629; 222 C. 299; 226 C. 191; 228 C. 487. “Fair preponderance of the evidence” standard for determining whether probation has been violated; judgment of Appellate Court in 29 CA 801, 813 reversed. 229 C. 285. Cited. 235 C. 469; 240 C. 639; 242 C. 648. Willfulness not an element of a probation violation; state need only establish that probationer knew of the condition and engaged in conduct that violated the condition. 256 C. 412. If defendant has been convicted of criminal conduct, following either a guilty plea, Alford plea or jury trial, and defendant has pursued a timely appeal from such conviction and that appeal remains unresolved, a live controversy exists so that an appeal challenging a finding of violation of probation stemming from that conduct is not moot. 286 C. 353. Trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing; the predicate facts proved by the state in this case are insufficient, either individually or in the aggregate, to establish a violation of Sec. 53-21(a)(1), which in this case, served as the foundation for trial court's finding of a violation of probation. 303 C. 18. Re defendant who admitted violating conditions of probation but contested revocation, due process rights were not violated by admission of photographs from social media Internet websites depicting defendant committing acts in violation of terms of probation because state articulated an uncontradicted basis for determining whether each image depicted defendant before or during probation and defendant failed to contest that the photographs depicted her while on probation. Id., 304.

Cited. 3 CA 410; 6 CA 394; 7 CA 131; 9 CA 59; Id., 686; 11 CA 251; 12 CA 679; 13 CA 638; 15 CA 34; 16 CA 264; 18 CA 368; 19 CA 304; 20 CA 572; 22 CA 303; 23 CA 642; judgment reversed, see 219 C. 629; 27 CA 225; Id., 780. Standard of proof needed to find a violation of probation discussed. 29 CA 801; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 285. Cited. 30 CA 346; 31 CA 278; judgment reversed, see 230 C. 385, see also 37 CA 801; 32 CA 1; 33 CA 162, see also 35 CA 520; 34 CA 1; Id., 46; Id., 537; 35 CA 107. Proper standard of proof in revocation of probation proceeding is that of a fair preponderance of the evidence; previous consideration of case, 33 CA 162, remanded for reconsideration, 229 C. 916; original judgment reversed and case remanded for new probation revocation hearing. Id., 520. Cited. 36 CA 440; 37 CA 72; 38 CA 762; 39 CA 175; Id., 267; Id., 722; 40 CA 395; 42 CA 768; 45 CA 566. Reaffirmed prior holding that proper standard of proof for revocation of probation hearing proceeding is a fair preponderance of evidence and that revocation is on consideration of the whole record. 52 CA 557. A probation revocation hearing has two distinct components. 56 CA 125. In determining whether defendant's probationary status should be revoked court has broad discretion and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of court's ruling. 57 CA 743. State may amend the factual basis for an alleged probation violation prior to a hearing under section. 60 CA 515. If a specific condition of probation does not explicitly proscribe certain noncriminal conduct and cannot be reasonably interpreted to proscribe such conduct, defendant must receive actual notice that continuation of the conduct could result in a charge of violation of a condition of probation. Id., 716. Willfulness is not an element of the offense of violation of probation; court's findings that defendant violated probation were not clearly erroneous. 68 CA 367. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation and reinstating prison sentence after defendant's urine tested positive for opiate. Id., 437. Court is vested with broad discretion in determining, on basis of the entire record, whether sentence of probation should continue or be revoked, and court may require defendant to serve the sentence imposed or impose a lesser sentence. 81 CA 710. Trial court properly found violations of defendant's probation and did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation. 102 CA 154. Because defendant accepted a sentence that included probation, modification of terms of probation for violation of Sec. 53-21 to include sexual offender evaluation and treatment did not violate due process as long as modified conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety. 105 CA 693. In adjudicative phase, court's finding that defendant violated condition of his probation was not clearly erroneous and, in dispositional phase, court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation after finding that the rehabilitative purpose of probation could not be fulfilled. 112 CA 40. When, subsequent to a judgment revoking probation, defendant was convicted of crimes for some of the conduct for which his probation was revoked, and Appellate Court had heard his appeal and Supreme Court had denied petition, his appeal re revocation of probation was moot as to those crimes, but was not moot as to conduct that was not at issue at criminal trial. Id., 147. Court's failure to make explicit findings of fact regarding the rationale underlying its decision to revoke probation does not, in and of itself, signify the absence of the dispositional phase. 116 CA 76. A probation revocation hearing does not require all the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding; notice to defendant satisfied the mandates of due process. 123 CA 674. If a person is convicted of a crime, he may not claim that in a prior violation of probation hearing regarding the same course of conduct there was insufficient evidence to prove the violation. 130 CA 19.

Cited. 42 CS 574.

Subsec. (a):

A probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal proceeding and is not subject to the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions, and the state may reinstitute a violation of probation charge at any time after dismissal without prejudice by the court provided defendant's period of probation has not expired. 301 C. 630.

Cited. 10 CA 395; 25 CA 421; judgment reversed, see 222 C. 299. Trial court reasonably could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant violated his probation by engaging in breach of the peace and criminal mischief and thus violated criminal laws of the state. 57 CA 64. State satisfied notice requirements when it recited the charges constituting defendant's violation of probation during both defendant's arraignment and probation revocation hearing. 80 CA 75.

Subsec. (b):

Cited. 178 C. 145; 225 C. 46. Court's discretion to provide right of allocution to defendant during probation revocation proceeding is identical to discretion provided at time of original sentencing. 243 C. 339. When defendant has raised a claim that trial court abused its discretion in rendering its judgment during dispositional phase, practical relief is available even when there is no live controversy as to whether defendant committed the underlying offense and, therefore, the claim is not moot. 286 C. 367.

Cited. 1 CA 70; 10 CA 395; 31 CA 660. Trial court has broad discretion in continuing or revoking sentence of probation. 50 CA 46. Provides that once a probation violation is established, court may extend period of probation if original period with any extension does not exceed periods authorized by Sec. 53a-29. 72 CA 33. Subsec. requires that violation of probation be “established by the introduction of reliable and probative evidence”; this requirement is not satisfied when, as in this case, the substance that defendant possessed was readily available for laboratory analysis to determine whether it in fact contained cocaine, a narcotic, but was never subjected to such testing. 81 CA 409.

Subsec. (c):

120 day limitation establishes a directory rule, rather than a mandatory rule, and such time period is a goal, guideline and advisory. 178 CA 715.