1. (a) If an agent has reason to believe that a parolee has violated the conditions of his parole, that action of the Board is necessary, and that an arrest or the lodging of a detainer is appropriate, the agent may apply to his district supervisor for permission to arrest and for the issuance of a ‘‘Warrant to Commit and Retain’’ (PBPP-141).
2. (b) An application should normally be responded to either by the granting of permission to arrest with the issuance of the Board warrant or by a refusal to issue the warrant promptly.
3. (c) The warrant shall be executed forthwith, with every diligent effort being made to locate and arrest, as promptly as possible, the parolee named in the Board warrant.
4. (d) If the agent is unable to contact the district supervisor or feels that immediate confinement of the parolee is imperative, he may utilize an ‘‘Order to Detain for 48 hours’’ (PBPP-142), as warrant to commit and retain the parolee. If the warrant is used, the agent shall apply to his district supervisor for a ‘‘Warrant to Commit and Retain’’ (PBPP-141), as promptly as possible.
5. (e) In those instances where the parolee is already in custody on another charge, the ‘‘Warrant to Commit and Retain’’ (PBPP-141) shall be lodged as a detainer at the institution where the parolee is held.

Source

The provisions of this § 71.1 adopted August 4, 1972, effective August 14, 1972, 12 Pa.B. 1465; amended February 18, 1977, effective March 1, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 487. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (32640).

Notes of Decisions

Detainer Proper

The Board’s detainer was proper insofar as the petitioner was required to serve Federal sentence and back time under prior State sentence before serving new sentence. Bellochio v. Board of Probation and Parole, 559 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

Timeliness

The effect of this regulation was to toll the running of any period of time in which the Board of Probation and Parole was required to act until the parolee was returned to State custody. Therefore, where the preliminary hearing was held 11 days after the parolee’s return to this Commonwealth it was a timely hearing. Fulton v. Board of Probation and Parole, 663 A.2d 865 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

Because the parole agent did not have reason to believe that the parolee violated the conditions of parole before the expiration date of the original sentence, the Board of Probation and Parole did not err in failing to lodge a detainer prior to that date. Williams v. Board of Probation and Parole, 654 A.2d 235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

Where the Board filed a detainer warrant on December 31, 1979, under this section, a preliminary hearing held on January 16, 1980 was held within the 15 day limit, since January 15 was an official Commonwealth holiday. Anderson v. Board of Probation and Parole, 471 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

Warrant

A parolee’s assertion that arrest occurred without the lodging of the proper warrant as required by this section was dismissed as meritless when the record was found to contain a Board warrant to commit and detain the parolee issued the same date as the arrest. Prough v. Board of Probation and Parole, 467 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).