A domestic violence victim contacted the Ombudsman to complain that a DOC Probation Officer (PO) improperly advocated for a convict in court. She also asserted that the PO had acted unethically. Before contacting the Ombudsman, the complainant had contacted the Department of Corrections Commissioner and several other state agencies for assistance but did not hear back. The Ombudsman determined that there was merit to some, but not all, of the complainant’s allegations. Evidence suggested that the probation officer had not fully complied with the agency’s required policies and procedures in handling the case. She permitted the probationer to self-report his compliance with probation conditions, did not independently verify the accuracy of information, and failed to regularly obtain urinalysis test results as required by agency policy. The officer also represented to the judge in the related criminal case that the defendant had fully complied with the terms of his probation, including submitting clean urinalysis test results, when she had failed to request UAs for more than a year and a half. As a result of the investigation, the agency reassigned the case to a different probation officer. After the case was reassigned, DOC conducted an unannounced home visit and found evidence that the defendant had violated several probation conditions. DOC subsequently arrested the defendant and withdrew a motion filed by the original probation officer requesting early termination of the defendant’s probation. The complainant was satisfied with the agency’s response to her complaint. (A2017-0345)