A. As used in this section, "intensive supervision programs" means programs that provide highly structured and intense supervision, with stringent reporting requirements, of certain individuals who represent an excessively high assessment of risk of violation of probation or parole, emphasize meaningful rehabilitative activities and reasonable alternatives without seriously increasing the risk of recidivist crime and facilitate the payment of restitution by the offender to the victim. "Intensive supervision programs" include house arrest programs or electronic surveillance programs or both.

B. The corrections department shall implement and operate intensive supervision programs in various local communities. The programs shall provide services for appropriate individuals by probation and parole officers of the corrections department. The corrections department shall promulgate rules and regulations to provide that the officers providing these services have a maximum case load of forty offenders and to provide for offender selection and other criteria. The corrections department may cooperate with all recognized law enforcement authorities and share all necessary and pertinent information, records or documents regarding probationers or parolees in order to implement and operate these intensive supervision programs.

C. For purposes of this section, a judge contemplating imposition of an intensive supervision program for an individual shall consult with the adult probation and parole division of the corrections department and consider the recommendations before imposing such probation. The adult probation and parole division of the corrections department shall recommend only those individuals who would have otherwise been recommended for incarceration for intensive supervision programs. A judge has discretion to impose an intensive supervision program for an individual, regardless of recommendations made by the adult probation and parole division. Inmates eligible for parole, or within twelve months of eligibility for parole, or inmates who would otherwise remain in a correctional institution for lack of a parole plan or those parolees whose parole the board would otherwise revoke are eligible for intensive supervision programs. The provisions of this section do not limit or reduce the statutory authority vested in probation and parole supervision as defined by any other section of the Probation and Parole Act.

D. There is created in the state treasury the "corrections department intensive supervision fund" to be administered by the corrections department upon vouchers signed by the secretary of corrections. Balances in the corrections department intensive supervision fund shall not revert to the general fund. Beginning July 1, 1988, the intensive supervision programs established pursuant to this section shall be funded by those supervision costs collected pursuant to the provisions of Sections 31-20-6 and 31-21-10 NMSA 1978. The corrections department is specifically authorized to hire additional permanent or term full-time equivalent positions for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this section.

History: 1978 Comp., § 31-21-13.1, enacted by Laws 1988, ch. 62, § 3; 1991, ch. 52, § 2; 2013, ch. 48, § 1.

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, increased the maximum case load of probation and parole officers working in intensive supervision programs from twenty to forty offenders; and in Subsection B, in the third sentence, after "maximum case load of", deleted "twenty" and added "forty".

The 1991 amendment, effective July 1, 1991, in the first sentence of Subsection A, substituted "individuals who represent an excessively high assessment to risk of violation of probation or parole, emphasize" for "probationers and parolees who represent an excessively high assessment of risk to the community, emphasizes"; in the second sentence of Subsection B, substituted "individuals" for "probationers and parolees"; Subsection C, substituted "adult probation and parole division" for "field services division" in the first two sentences, added the present third sentence, and in the present fourth sentence substituted "Inmates eligible for parole, or within twelve months of eligibility for parole, or inmates" for "Only those parolees"; and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.

Warrantless searches and seizures. — Defendant's expectations of privacy, particularly as to his vehicle parked outside the probation office, were necessarily reduced by his status and by the provisions in the probation order and intensive supervision program agreement regarding warrantless searches and seizures where he was under arrest, and had undergone a patdown search that aroused suspicions and a key-lock match that caught him in a lie. Defendant's probation status, together with his prior convictions and current probation violation for which he was arrested, the patdown discovery of a large sum of cash in small bills, and defendant's lie about how he arrived at the probation office were sufficient to give the officers a reasonable basis to search the vehicle for evidence of another violation of his probation conditions. State v. Ponce, 2004-NMCA-137, 136 N.M. 614, 103 P.3d 54, cert. quashed, 2006-NMCERT-004, 139 N.M. 429, 134 P.3d 120.