Roger Brian Clarke, II, s/k/a Roger Brian Clarke, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1574161

Appellant Roger Brian Clarke II was previously convicted of multiple sex offenses in 2005 and later convicted (2014) of failing to reregister as a violent sex offender; the court suspended part of his sentence and placed him on five years supervised probation.
On December 22, 2015, Clarke began supervised probation under Probation Officer Donna Baker, who gave him a written “Conditions of Probation Supervision” and a separate written “Sex Offender Special Instructions” which Clarke read and signed.
The special instructions were imposed pursuant to Department of Corrections policy and Baker testified they are given to every convicted sex offender on supervision statewide.
Baker filed a major probation violation report alleging Clarke breached Condition 6 (obey officer’s instructions / be truthful and report) by violating multiple special instructions.
At the revocation hearing the trial court found Clarke violated six special instructions, concluded the Department/probation officer had authority under the Code to impose them, revoked probation, and ordered incarceration on previously suspended terms.
Clarke appealed, arguing probation officers lack statutory authority under Va. Code § 53.1-145 to impose the special sex-offender instructions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a probation officer (via Dept. of Corrections policy) may impose written sex-offender special instructions as conditions of supervised probation	Clarke: § 53.1-145 limits probation officers’ authority (supervise/assist and drug/alcohol testing), so they cannot impose the special instructions that go beyond statutory list	Commonwealth/trial court: § 53.1-145, read with statutes delegating rulemaking and supervisory authority to the DOC, authorizes the DOC and probation officers to implement and furnish conditions (including special instructions) to effectuate supervision and public safety	Held: Affirmed — DOC policy-imposed special instructions are within the authority granted by the statutory scheme; officer acted under statutory duties to perform DOC-required tasks and provide written conditions

Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 (2013) (standard for viewing evidence on probation revocation appeal)
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 529 (2013) (de novo review for statutory interpretation questions)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 274 (2015) (apply plain statutory language to discern legislative intent)
Va. Cellular LLC v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 276 Va. 486 (2008) (statutory interpretation principles)
Dossola v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 444 (2001) (probation goals: reform and reintegration)
Murry v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 117 (2014) (probation conditions must be reasonable; heightened public safety concern for sex offenders)
Griffin v. Wis., 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (balancing probationer privacy against state interest in supervision)
Miller v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 727 (1997) (probation officers charged with defining permissible conduct under supervision)
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 580 (1998) (probation conditions subject to reasonableness constraint)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 82 (2016) (trial court may not improperly delegate matters reserved to the court)
Pierce v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 660 (2006) (cited re delegation/authority limits)