treatment we're not challenging the requirement that he part that he undergoes treatment our concern relates to the un in numerous aspects of condition regarding probation officer you can do both conditions stay in pertinent part the probation officer will supervise the detail of the defendant's participation in the program including the selection of the provider and the schedule  concern is what it means by including the unenumerated aspects of this condition we raise questions in the district court whether this includes allowing a probation probation may be imposed doesn't peterson saying that these types of details are permissibly delegated to probation how is this different from peterson or young for that matter which was decided because our concern is what this actually means and  question whether or not the probation officer all the sudden sitting in on treatment sessions whether the probation officer and access the record if i can give you an example of why this becomes problematic type of detail the treatment has to be approved by the court possibly do that i think we need to just clarify what is the difference between what is administrative which is establishing a schedule or approving a schedule i think the treatment provider a schedule how often someone should be going in for treatment involved their involvement with the selection the provider and just ensuring that he's complying with indignation that is that he goes to treatment and that he is participating  treatment in this can easily be met by the trigger provider reporting to the probation officer that yes he is coming to the treatment program yes he is actively participating is cooperative with it or they can report that no he has not been coming to the treatment program or he's been coming to the treatment program and he has been creating trouble and when we need to address that aspect of it it does not mean that the probation officer should start getting involved with questioning every little detail that the individual has to tell his treatment provider again effective treatment and that's where our concern law is what should  client decides that hey i don't want to answer these questions or i feel i shouldn't have to answer these questions is going to be violated in all this and that raises this to a whole other level that we have to address if we can clear this up with working and we can actually meet the probation officer will supervise the administrative acts of the defense compliance with the treatment program by selecting or approving the trigger provider overseeing the schedule and receiving reports from the provider regarding the defendant's participation with the program and i probation officers in the western district of which we have we is limiting the probation officers accessing treatment records i find it interesting there's a there's another special condition that was imposed our we're not challenging but it shows some of the differences that's happening there's a search condition that was imposed which reads if i may the defendant shall submit to a search of his person property vehicle place of residence or any other property under his control based upon reasonable suspicion all the sudden now here we have his property being held to a higher standard than his spot and when the probation officer is sitting in on treatment sessions with the probation officers aspect getting a hold of the file and going into these aspects interfering with the treatment itself it's a going on i think there needs to be specific findings as to why this is necessary for an individual client conditions of supervised release are supposed to be the least restrictive and way this is this becomes more restrictive the morning may please the court my name is tiffany lee and i represent the united states turning to the condition of treatment the way the issue was there was one thing that was troubling me with viewed the fact that in terms of when probation is involved in its executive function in ensuring that the sentence imposed is being complied with particularly during the term of supervision the district court states numerous times i count on probation in essence to be my eyes and ears and so i think the problem the district court was saying that it could very well be that participation or at least there may be instances in which a probation officer may sit in on a treatment you know that couldn't be as a result of this the provider wanting a probation officer there are whatever look we think there's a special need to be in this session why washing the particular showing something is intrusive your honor i don't think that's where we are with respect to the way the objections were launched in this particular case because in essence the main objection to the treatment conditions had to do with the concept of the intimacy of delegation of authority and then you know basically coun of the treatment including selection of a provider and everything it wasn't it wasn't delegation it has to do with again the supervision the ex executive function of it it had doesn't have to do with whether or not the person gets released from treatment or anything along those lines which was the problematic going which from before the condition was basically you have to go to treatment and that you know details how that treatment is going to be administered probation can be involved with that but is it the government's position that the judgment as drafted authorizes the probation officer to sit in on treatments i don't i've it's unclear it depends on you just because we don't know like in terms of any given treatment provider what there are mandates are what their policies are in terms of having you probation and a probation officer  participate in that but that was not really quite before the issue of the court because now excuse me that wasn't quite the issue framed as the objection to that condition specifically  short horn but to the extent that there is an issue with that if for example someone gets violent for noncompliance because of the fact that they refused to attend the treatment for you know session because i don't want my probation officer to that is something that could be brought back again to the district court or could be submitted to the district for court for in terms of for modification as it stands as the way it was argued below  counsel was trying to come up with examples in which it was trying to come up with a whole list of examples to illustrate the breadth of what does details mean and she she turned to the issue of the fact that probation or was being was denying her access to her kinds medical records through the treatment process in which case the district court said listen i i i understand that you should totally have access but the district court basically was saying this condition as it is phrased now which had been modified post peterson she was essentially saying this condition that imposing now is not impressed hold delegation and it gives enough authority to probation to do its job in terms of being the eyes and ears for the court and you know i would turn this court's attention to the panel and he said listen probation is given the discretion to decide to decide the administrative aspects of the treatment such as selection of provider unsaddle and noted that probation has an extensive executive function they have an extensive executive function but to the extent there is a concern where probation has overstepped that can be resolved either through a modification of the condition or in application and it's the government's position that it does not because the crucial decision making is really what the court whether or not the person is a risk and then the nd part of it in terms of notification is really an execution  of that determination whether or not this post this person poses a risk and as a standing order is written and actually talks about the question in terms of our school what it's the rest it's the risk of commuting future crimes so it's not just a vague risk notification it's particular to whether or not the defendant will commit another crime unless the court has any further questions the government rests on this whatever language out there they were just trying to point out some of the aspects of what a probation officer is doing in supervising a defendant on this condition the problem arose when someone decided to turn that language and just adopt that into the condition without thinking it through and trying to write a condition that is workable and can go in function saying whether or not someone can visit one of our clients at their place of employment versus going in and going every day there we're not arguing about whether or not they can do the visit the is to ensure you know that the monitoring by the probation officer is to ensure that one he is in treatment programs that he is attending the treatment program and that he's participating in the treatment program that's in the administrative aspects that we're concerned  with we don't want to go beyond that really and that's the problem that we have here as we see when the judge said that yes we raise this question based on what we've been seeing and what we've been exploring with our clients with the treatment you think that's limited there may be a need if if the treatment provider is saying it's time to he's done with treatment he's completed then there might be a more detailed report necessary but i think daily reports or weekly reports or full access   why we think the condition is is problematic so you just want to may want to look at those as you considering the condition thank you