Indiana Probation Violation Lawyers

    A Probation Allegation Can Put the Original Sentence Back in Play.

    Summerfield-Dandurand Law Group emblem

    Custom Law defends Indiana probationers facing revocation, added conditions, incarceration, and extension of supervision.

    Custom Law professional recognition badge
    Custom Law professional recognition badge
    Custom Law professional recognition badge
    Custom Law professional recognition badge

    Probation Violations in Indiana

    Indiana Code §35-38-2 gives courts broad authority to impose probation conditions. An alleged violation may lead to a warrant, detention, added supervision, or a petition asking the court to revoke probation and impose some or all of the suspended sentence.

    A probation officer may respond to a misdemeanor-level issue with community service, testing, or counseling, while felony or serious allegations are commonly reported to the court.

    Common Alleged Violations

    • A new arrest or conviction
    • A failed or diluted drug test
    • Missing check-ins, counseling, or treatment
    • Unauthorized travel
    • Curfew or home-confinement violations
    • Failure to pay fees without requesting assistance
    • Violation of a no-contact or other special condition

    Consequences of a Probation Violation

    The court may extend probation, add jail, order stricter conditions, place the person on electronic monitoring, or require counseling, rehabilitation, testing, and more frequent reporting. The court may also order the probationer to serve part or all of the previously suspended sentence.

    A serious violation can affect future bond decisions and may make later expungement more difficult. Because revocation proceedings concern an existing sentence, the prosecution’s burden is lower than at a new criminal trial and ordinary trial protections do not all apply in the same way.

    Defending a Revocation Proceeding

    Defense may show that no violation occurred through witnesses, records, police reports, testing evidence, proof of compliance, or evidence that a failure was not willful. When noncompliance cannot be disputed, mitigation may show that incarceration would interrupt rehabilitation, employment, treatment, family support, or productive community ties.

    Prepared for What Comes Next

    What to Expect from Custom Law

    Criminal defense requires more than a quick review of the charging paperwork. Our attorneys look at how the investigation started, how evidence was obtained, what the State must prove, and how the case may affect the client outside the courtroom.

    Drawing on more than 20 years of legal experience, former-prosecutor insight, and extensive courtroom work, the team develops a tailored approach for negotiations, hearings, or trial while keeping clients informed from start to finish.

    01

    Former Prosecutor Insight

    As former Indiana prosecutors, our criminal defense attorneys know the tactics that may be used against an accused person. The team has handled countless criminal cases and hundreds of successful jury trials.

    02

    Prepared for Court

    We organize the facts, analyze the law, and prepare each matter with the possibility of hearings or trial in mind.

    03

    Direct Communication

    Clients receive clear explanations, candid advice, and updates needed to make informed decisions throughout the case.

    20+
    Years of Trial Experience
    10,000+
    Cases Handled
    1:1
    Client-Focused Representation

    Client Reviews

    What Our Clients Say

    Rated 5.0 on Google Reviews

    From day one they treated my case like it mattered. They fought hard, kept me informed, and got my charges dismissed. I can't recommend this team enough.

    James R.

    True trial attorneys. The prosecutor clearly did not want to face them. Professional, prepared, and genuinely on my side the whole time.

    Michael T.

    Responsive, honest, and incredibly knowledgeable. They handled my OWI charge with skill and got me a result I didn't think was possible.

    David K.