Could Connecticut parole officers enforce parole conditions on the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan reservations?

Plain-English summary

In October 1996, Connecticut’s AG advised the Board of Parole that its officers could enforce parole conditions for Indian and non-Indian parolees on the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan reservations. Federal settlement statutes gave Connecticut criminal jurisdiction on both reservations. The AG treated parole as part of that jurisdiction, extending through release from state custody, and noted that a parolee remained under the board’s legal custody and control during parole.

The opinion addressed state parole supervision, not every form of state authority on tribal land. A footnote recorded another question: whether parole officers were mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. Because the board already had a policy requiring reports, the AG said it was unnecessary to decide the statutory question then.

Parole officers and board staff at the time

The AG treated the two reservations like other locations in Connecticut for enforcement of state parole conditions under the stated federal jurisdiction grants.

Parolees at the time

The opinion said tribal membership did not change the board’s parole authority for people serving Connecticut sentences under its supervision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did a parolee’s move onto either reservation end Connecticut parole supervision?
A: No. The AG said state officers retained authority to enforce parole conditions there.

Q: Did the answer differ for tribal members and nonmembers?
A: No. The opinion applied to both groups on the two federal reservations.

Q: Did the AG decide whether parole officers were mandatory child-abuse reporters under state law?
A: No. He noted the board’s existing reporting policy and left that legal question unanswered.

Background and statutory framework

The AG relied on federal jurisdiction grants for the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan reservations, including 25 U.S.C. § 1755 and § 1775d, and the state parole board’s authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-126.

Citations and references

Statutes: 25 U.S.C. § 1755; 25 U.S.C. § 1775d; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-126.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1996-formal-opinions/john-meeker-chairman-board-of-parole-1996015-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

John Meeker, Chairman, Board of Parole, 1996-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

October 21, 1996

John Meeker, Chairman

Board of Parole

90 Brainard Road

Hartford, CT 06114

Dear Chairman Meeker:

This letter responds to your request for advice concerning whether parole officers have authority to enforce conditions of parole with respect to parolees, Indians and nonIndians, on federal reservations. Endnote 1 We believe that parole officers have the same authority to enforce conditions of parole with respect to Indian and nonIndian parolees on federal Indian reservations as they do elsewhere in Connecticut.

Connecticut has two federally recognized Indian tribes, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe. Both Tribes have federal reservations in Connecticut, in Ledyard and Montville respectfully. Connecticut has criminal jurisdiction on both reservations. 25 U.S.C. § 1755; 25 U.S.C. § 1775d. Because Connecticut's parole scheme is part of its criminal jurisdiction, the State has jurisdiction over all parolees, regardless of their membership in a federally recognized tribe or situs within a federal Indian reservation.

As to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, in 1983, the Tribe received federal recognition by an act of the United States Congress entitled the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (the "Settlement Act"). 25 U.S.C. § 1751 et. seq. Under the Settlement Act, Congress granted Connecticut "jurisdiction" over the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe's reservation "to the maximum extent provided" in 25 U.S.C. § 1321. 25 U.S.C. § 1755. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1321, Connecticut has jurisdiction over "criminal offenses committed by or against Indians . . ." on the Reservation to the "same extent that such State has jurisdiction over any such offense committed elsewhere . . ." in Connecticut. The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently confirmed that these federal statutes granted to Connecticut criminal jurisdiction on the Reservation over Indians and nonIndians. State v. Spears, 234 Conn. 78 (1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 565 (1995).

With respect to the Mohegan Tribe, Congress also granted to Connecticut criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Tribe's reservation. Section 1775d of the Mohegan Nation Land Claims Settlement Act provides:

The State shall have such jurisdiction to the same extent as the State has jurisdiction over such offenses committed elsewhere within the State. The criminal laws of the State shall have the same force within such reservation and Indian country as such laws have elsewhere within the State.
25 U.S.C. § 1775d.

Your particular question concerns the enforcement authority of parole officers as to Indians and nonIndians on Connecticut's two federal reservations. Connecticut's statutory scheme governing parole is found in Title 54 of the General Statutes, which governs criminal procedure. These statutes permit the Board of Parole in its discretion to grant parole under certain circumstances and under specified conditions. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § § 54-125, 54-125a. The Board is charged with and authorized to create and enforce rules and regulations concerning parole. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-126. During the period of parole, the parolee remains "in the legal custody and control of the board until the expiration of the term or terms for which he was sentenced." Conn. Gen. Stat. § § 54-125, 54-125a(a).

The congressional grants of criminal jurisdiction discussed above encompass all aspects of the State's jurisdiction over criminal offenses from arrest, through and including the prosecution, sentencing, incarceration and parole, until the defendant's final discharge from state custody.

In summary, Connecticut has criminal jurisdiction on the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan reservations, with respect to all persons, Indians and nonIndians. The State's parole scheme falls squarely within the State's criminal jurisdiction. Accordingly, parole officers have jurisdiction to enforce all conditions of parole with respect to all parolees in Connecticut, including parolees located on the State's two federal reservations.

We trust this opinion answers you concerns.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Susan Quinn CobbMbr> Assistant Attorney General

Stephen J. O'Neill

Assistant Attorney General

Endnote 1

You also asked whether parole officers are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101. You have advised us that the Board has adopted a policy of requiring its parole officers to report suspected instances of child abuse. In view of the adoption of this policy, which we regard as clearly within the Board's authority to promote "the welfare of society" (see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-125), it is not now necessary to respond to this question. If the Board should consider changing this policy in the future, you should then seek our advice on this question.