as the court officer has obtained some background of the case, he interviews the defendant, either in jail or, if he is out on bail, the officer notifies him to come to the probation office.92 From this interview a comprehensive work sheet on the defendant is filled out. This work sheet usually serves as the outline for the interview with the defendant. The work sheet calls for about 66 different items or groups of information covering the man's heredity, environment, personal history, his previous offenses, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the present offense. The defendant is also asked to write out a narrative description of his offense and any other facts and circumstances that he wishes to explain.

In interviewing a defendant the court officer first makes a preliminary statement to the applicant stating the functions of the probation department in regard to his case, pointing out that the probation officer is there to be helpful and requesting the truthful cooperation of the defendant in his own interest. Questions are then asked, which usually follow in detail the data called for by the work sheet, and the answers are written down on this sheet. When the series of questions is concluded the interview is usually at an end, except for such additional questioning as may be useful on some point that is obscurely stated. Of particular interest to the investigators are the reasons given by the applicant for the commission of his offense, and there is generally considerable examination into this matter.

At this point the investigating officer has available all the information that is of official record in the files of the police or sheriff's office, the defendant's own story and his answers to the questions on the work sheet, in addition to the replies from the letters of reference sent out the day the case was filed in the probation office. Where time permits the investigating officer proceeds to interview other persons who are connected with the case or who are interested in the defendant, seeking to expand the information he has at hand and to verify information already given him, particularly

Due to lack of privacy in both the general conference room of the county jail and in the probation office where the interview takes place there, it is difficult to establish a confidential relationship between probationer and officer. 73115-39-VOL. I-10

the statements made by the defendant. Among those whom the officers attempt to interview are the complaining witness, the peace officers who acted in the case, the district attorney who handled the case, the family and relatives of the defendant, and sometimes his employer. If the replies to the letters of reference indicate any possible help from these sources, personal interviews are arranged with some of these

persons.

About 3 or 4 days before the date of the probation hearing the investigating officer dictates the report to be presented to the court. Each probation report commences with a form face sheet. This is filled out by the investigating officer. The supplementary or additional data are then dictated on ediphone records and this material when typed is attached to the face sheet forming the complete report to the court. The headings used in dictating the report are as follows: (1) Previous arrests: In which is detailed the defendant's entire police record; (2) Present offense: This is a brief summary of the offense and the facts and circumstances immediately connected with it; (3) Defendant's statement: This summarizes the defendant's explanation of the offense and any other pertinent facts he may have added about himself; (4) Economic status: This includes the probation officer's findings as to the economic status of the defendant and his family, covering his employment record and his possibilities for future employment; (5) Comments: Here the probation officer comments on the salient facts in the case and presents the reasons which support the formal recommendation which he makes; (6) The probation officer's recommendations for or against probation and the suggested conditions under which he thinks probation should be granted.

Each officer prepares his own report. Those officers who serve a particular judge have adapted their procedure and the detail of the report to fit the desires of the judge whom they serve. If the investigating officer is an inexperienced man, he confers with the director of the court division concerning the report and the recommendations to be made. In all cases which are of a complex nature an investigating officer confers with the director of his division.

After a report is prepared it is given to the director of the court division, who has the opportunity to check it over before it is presented to the court. Usually the report is filed with the court a day or two before the date set for hearing so that the judge may have the opportunity carefully to read over the facts presented. The attempt is made to include in the probation officer's report all the information which may be of value to the judge and all of the data which the probation officer feels should be presented to the court. It is not customary for the probation officer at the time of the hearing to supplement the reports with oral explanation or further statements.

In any case involving the use of narcotics in which an investigation is made recommendation is not made by the investigating officer. The determination of the recommendation and the approval of the report to be filed by the court are made by the director of the adult division, the director of the court division, and the director of the narcotics division in conference.

Terms and conditions.-The court may direct that the period of probation continue for a period not exceeding the maximum possible term of sentence, except where in the order granting probation, as a condition thereof, the defendant is to be imprisoned in the county jail for a period not exceeding the maximum time fixed by law. Where such maximum time is less than 2 years, the period of suspension may, in the discretion of the court, continue for not over 3 years." The power of the court to modify orders includes the power to enlarge the term beyond the time originally fixed, at any time before the original term expires." Where

* Cal. Pen, Code (Deering. 1937) § 1203.1.

Ex parte Sizelove, 158 Cal. 493, 111 Pac. 527 (1910); In re Hazlett, 137 Cal. App. 734, 31 P. (2d) 448 (1934). The limitation on the period of probation probably includes the original term plus any extensions. There are no cases on the point.

In misdemeanor cases the court can fix the period up to 2 years even though the maximum sentence possible is less than that time. Cal. Pen. Code (Deering, Supp. 1933) § 1203a; In re Clausen, 14 Cal. App. (2d) 246, 57 P. (2d) 1353 (1936).

Under the former motor vehicle code in drunken driving cases, the court could not impose a greater sentence than the jury recommended. It was held under that provision that the court could not circumvent the statute by granting probation and as a condition of probation order a period of commitment to the county jail for a greater period than that recommended by

the length of the period is not specified, the term extends through the period of maximum possible sentence and no longer.95

The court may set forth such terms and conditions as it determines. It may imprison the defendant in the county jail for a period not exceeding the maximum time fixed by law in the instant case, or it may place the defendant in road camps or jail farms where these are available. It may

96

the jury. Cal. Gen. Laws (Deering, 1931) Act 5128, § 112. In re MoVeity, 98 Cal. App. 723, 277 Pac. 745 (1929); In re Montague, 99 Cal. App. 576, 278 Pac. 1061 (1929) (rehearing and appeal denied). But the statutory provision in question has since been amended and does not now give the power of recommending sentence to the jury. See Cal. Gen. Laws (Deering, Supp. 1935) 500-502.

25 In re Gionnini, 18 Cal. App. 166, 122 Pac. 831 (1912); In re Herron, 217 Cal. 400, 19 P. (2d) 4 (1933). See also People v. Lippner, 219 Cal. 395, 26 P. (2d) 457 (1933).

96 Where defendant was placed on probation for 5 years and sentenced to a jail term of 1 years as a term of probation, it was held that the court could not impose a new jail term after the expiration of the old although the attempted modification was within the 5-year period. In re Hazlett, 137 Cal. App. 734, 31 P. (2d) 448 (1934) (appeal denied). But where the jail term was extended before the expiration of the original term, it was held valid. In re Marcus, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 359, 53 P. (2d) 1021 (1936). And the modification does not constitute such double punishment as may be prohibited by the due process clause. People v. Roberts, 136 Cal. App. 709, 31 P. (2d) 1047 (1934).

Even if an order of confinement to a sanatorium were in error, where a subsequent valid order of confinement to county jail was made, it was held too late to question the first order. In rc Glick, 126 Cal. App. 649, 14 P. (2d) 796 (1932).

Before the probation law was amended to allow imprisonment in county jails or detention in road camps, it was held that the detention was invalid. People v. Mendosa, 178 Cal. 509, 173 Pac. 998 (1918); People v. Clark, 69 Cal. App. 520, 231 Pac. 590 (1924); In re Louis Fink, 79 Cal. App. 659, 250 Pac. 714 (1926); People v. Ramos, 80 Cal. App. 528, 251 Pac. 941 (1926). But the part of an order of probation committing the defendant could be severed from the otherwise valid probation order. Ibid.

But the amendment of 1927 allowing confinement during a probation period can be applied retroactively without violating the constitutional prohibition against ea post facto laws. In re Nachnaber, 89 Cal. App. 530, 265 Pac. 392 (1928).

Cal. Pen, Code (Deering, 1931) § 19a, providing that no person sentenced to confinement in county or city jail "on conviction of misdemeanor or as a condition of probation or for any other reason" shall be committed for a period in excess of 1 year, does not apply to felony cases. In re Marquez, 3 Cal. (2d) 625, 45 P. (2d) 342 (1935); In re Tantlinger, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 157, 47 P. (2d) 301 (1935); In re Brown, 5 Cal. App. (2d) 218, 42 P. (2d) 680 (1935). But see contra: In re Rasmussen, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 263, 41 P. (2d) 181 (1935). Defendant was sentenced on authority of Cal. Pen, Code (Deering, 1931) § 666 which provides for punishment after conviction for petty theft after having previously suffered a conviction for petty theft and having served a term of imprisonment therefor in a penal institution. The court held that confinement as a term of probation was not a term of imprisonment within the meaning of the statute. People v. Wallach, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 129, 47 P. (2d) 1071 (1935).

impose fines and provide for reparation 97 in proper cases. It may require bonds for the faithful observance and performance of any conditions of probation. The probationer may be required to go to work to earn money for support of his dependents or to pay any fine or reparation condition imposed. The court may impose and require any or all of the above conditions "and other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from such breach and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer." Where there are facilities for taking fingerprints such marks of identification must be taken and a record kept.98 Monthly reports by the probationer to the probation office, either mailed or brought in person, are generally required in all counties.

Terms and conditions: Los Angeles County.-In the county probation department there is a separate division of restitution. This division investigates all cases in which a restitution order is made a part of the conditions of probation. The purpose of this work is to determine the extent of the injuries or damage resulting from the offense and to arrange the details for the payment of the restitution ordered or the fine imposed.

All minute order transcripts received from the court, after passing through the file room of the probation department, are sent to the restitution division. There they are read, and in each case in which payment of a fine or of restitution is ordered as a condition of probation a card is made out and placed on file, noting the name of the defendant and the order of the court.

"Where the trial court imposed a condition of reimbursement as the only term of probation, the court held that the order of probation was not invalid on the theory that that condition alone did not make for rehabilitation of the defendant. The court also held that the conditions upon a breach of which revocation may be ordered were incorporated in every order of probation (see Revocation, infra). People v. Lippner, 219 Cal. 395, 26 P. (2d) 457 (1933), rev'g. 16 P. (2d) 1020 (1933).

* Cal. Pen. Code (Deering, 1937) § 1203.1. A condition of sterilization in a rape case where syphilis is involved is not an unreasonable condition. People v. Blankenship, 16 Cal. App. (2d) 606, 61 P. (2d) 352 (1936).