think your honor may please the court i'm peter henderson and we have a david thompson mr hill's will represent the other three defendants as to mr thompson i think really there's one main issue that we're concerned about and that's the length of the term of supervised release we also address the conditions somewhat but i think that the the main error here was the district court relying on a misconception of his authority under section thirty five eighty three to extend term of supervised release once and for those and i think that the record reflects quite clearly that he struggled with the decision of how long to make this term and based on his understanding that term could be process rights and it's a procedural error our position is that in light of the numerous supervised release conditions cases that have been decided in this court since mr thompson was sentenced back in twenty cases because the term of supervised release itself relied upon this misapprehension that that would be appropriate and the court doesn't need to dive in too much into the conditions that we've challenge the conditions of supervisor leaves have to be of the same length they all run for the entire term supervised release is that a rule well because you do some of these things you might might know you don't need fifteen years of mental health counseling and some right like that i think that the court could fashion a rule to say you know in the first two years after your released you'll be subject to this tre it is now this is the this is the this is the sex case right that's right you don't question the the defense right now the conviction and i have to say i find it very puzzling i'm i'm not sure what exactly is the sexual offense travel and sex offenses are very broad now one one of the offenses as transportation of child pornography and that was due to the two images but that seems so strange to me we think of child pornography as  situation we have a person of the collects large quantities of child pornography and uploads shares them and so on and of course then a lot of these women are exposed and so on stand there but she made these pictures and he's just carrying her pictures is there any suggestion that he was planning to distribute  was well i think i mean i think really it's the circumstances of and i think what the u s government saw what and they can speak to this i suppose but they saw a relationship forming between a twenty three year old and a fourteen year old on line that then evolved into a relationship when they were twenty five and sixteen that involved these explicit photographs and and skype conversations etc and the the recent i would say laws especially since since the past maybe fifteen years have really broadened the scope i think of what can be prosecuted and i think that the government probably saw that as an exploitive situation wasn't supposed to be involved with there right and i'm not sure about that part of the puzzle there are a lot of not yeah skew now one of these you do object on don't you to this business the the restriction that he can't have any contact with someone right under eighteen right and you mention you know you can't go to grocery store les seventeen year old cashier ring up his produce right is has the government offered any of the probation service any interpretation of this would make it more reasonable not not that i'm aware of i think probably the response as well probation is going to be reasonable in interpreting that and they're not they're not going to revoke based on incidental con contact but that's not what the conditions as and i think the main problem with these conditions is that it really delegates a great deal of authority to the probation department instead of the court in interpret in the very very fraught condition will it still have to come back to court  in the past well the i suppose my experience not on this particular condition but we we do see people who come in and get revoked because primarily just practically speaking what will happen is that the relationship between the defendant and probation has deteriorated and so you know the defender the federal system or stay system or in the federal system i'm talking about and so probation in seeking to revoke the terms of supervised release will go through the conditions and see ok which which ones can we find evidence that he violated and that can lead to a prison sentence and i think this commission in particular probation would very easily be able to do that you know  f it's a liability and it really does a disservice i think to mr thompson because there may be concerns about contacting my mother's a problem is if we start down this slippery slope we're going to define these conditions where we've had many many years since one thousand nine hundred four where these conditions have been imposed and there's really not been any questions i think mr hill's will will address this more but i think that there needs to be change into what the what the wording is once that's done then then it's done and i think once this court finds conditions that that meet the requirements of the law and then that'll be fine i don't think it's a terribly honor's effort but i think the case law that has come out especially this year suggest that these conditions are not appropriate need need to be reworked and merely that i guess are stu's ways of looking at it one is that prior to this time everybody had a practical ok well that's fine we'll do it s and because the conditions of the discretionary conditions that were imposed were contained in the p s r my client's lack notice so the standard of review is abuse of discretion except for constitutional challenges which should be subject to do know  and i would say they're not we have had for a number of years now as mr henderson alluded to practice where is very comfortably done at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing we adopt the standard conditions of supervised release the judge dops those imposes these additional conditions i've never heard a district court make any reference to thirty five eighty three d and i didn't happen in these three cases nor have i ever heard of court consider thirty five fifty three a factors in relation to the imposition of a condition supervised release or the length of the supervision so i don't believe that we've ever had a practice where there have been findings from so far as the fact should be there should be inclusion of the relevant terms in the p s r that's consistent with rule thirty two d one there should also be in that vein consistent with united states sentencing guidelines section five d factors that the probation office thinks is relevant so between the statute and the guidelines there are provisions that say to set these things forth in the p are not going to do i got more of an idea that your challenge is seen to be based on you know these far reaching interpretations of provisions it's a two affront to tacking on a lack of notice which we think is a but we also then have the additional challenges on the fourth amendment fifth amendment the first amendment the over brat the beggar's things of that nature which i will get to shortly but i did want to take a moment to spend some time on the let me let me back up just just one minute answer this question so part for me of the guidelines of statutory you don't think the court has any inherent authority to set conditions no your honor the the court does and thirty five eighty three d he allows that should be with re consideration to the pertinent policy statements in the guidelines but there have to get there has to be noticed they have to be findings right but i mean so the court can can tailor whatever conditions they want to then even though they may not be found those conditions may have a post sentencing proceeding where once an individual is released they can seek modification of a condition supervised release how they may not have counsel there and so that's what i'm talking about here instead i'm talking about you know more hearings after th each one but i guess the the problem has been the judges frequently will simply list the conditions that he's imposing even if they weren't in the pre sentence repor think that that is a deficiency and it's inconsistent with statutory requirements i think that defendants are reluctant sometimes to raise these issues because they're angling for a lower sentence and when they then have to go into these things that judge can judges consider minutia they risk aggravating the judge but i'm backside of this we have one in three individuals i believe this is referred to in the shadow sentencing law review article that was referenced in siegel one in three individuals are revoked supervised release they go back and they have some time short sentences they have no real show one in three i believe it was one in three is what that i'm for two and if i'm wrong apologize i'm going from memory on this but in any event they get short sentences they have limited procedural protections because due process isn't afforded to them the same fashion and so we're there on the lower standard of proof all sorts of things that happened to them on the back end that they're in peril of and so they should be contesting these things now but it hasn't been done in the past and those are some of our concerns and that's why it's appropriate to raise these concerns now as opposed to waiting to later and that relationship to mr henderson refer to the relationship between the probation officers and the individuals when you start getting testy with your probation officers bad things are going to happen to you  primarily rehabilitative purpose and so if we're going to say that we're going to give you a longer sentence now because you might challenge you're not going to say that but you should also shouldn't do it but i agree your honor i think that that's the risk that these individuals are at when they're trying to defend themselves the curious position that they're in because of the length of the sentence that they do and then the length of the supervised release that falls and sometimes as very burdensome conditions that  so it isn't a defendant likely to say to his lawyer i don't really care about what happens twenty two and a half years it's just too it's related to this point about i don't want to look like a nit pickers arguing with the judge over what i have to do in twenty two and for years i think the better course is not to impose that all of the conditions in the way they're being done leave it for a subsequent date  modification when you have a better developed history of the individual's time in his incarceration as well as how is he doing on supervised release add the conditions then as opposed to putting them all up front which makes little sense especially we look and we have a preprinted form we have twenty conditions or twenty three conditions that could be imposed we are typically seeing thirteen of those imposed in every case regardless of what the offenses are with the individual's history characteristics are there's no consideration of thirty five to three a factors but those are just procedural issues i'd like to advance now to the fourth amendment fifth amendment issues and then proceed to five time to the various vagueness challenges were concerned on the fourth amendment issue that the standard condition which isn't quoted in all  judgment forms allows for probation officers to make home visits doesn't have any requirement that the nature of the search be based and it is a search it's a home visit that's a nice term for that somebody showing up in their house  you have then a reason to in this issue in the fourth amendment is still applicable to these individuals so they've been convicted so it should be based on reasonable suspicion that should be done in a reasonable manner and yet the condition doesn't have any of those requirements and that's inconsistent with the fourth search and seizure i don't believe they have the full panoply so in the fourth amendment in particular they have a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of their previous conviction but they still have some fourth amendment protections in the fourth amendment the hallmark is reasonableness and pennsylvania  mims and we don't have any requirement that the condition be reasonable there's no tie to reasonable ness and needs to be done we have a fifth amendment issue as well we have individuals who have fifth amendment protection and there's no doubt that's that's the the  you want the random and not notification to make it work other was you know you can plan yeah i'll be there next tuesday well they are going to be different i understand law enforcement amendment still applies and so i understand that law enforcement always like the element of surprise in all cases but we still have them get warrants in other cases and at a minimum there has to be reasonable in this aspect of their entry into somebody's home in the search they c with a fifteen minute mission well and i do not believe that the government's correctly rather attempted to apply minnesota versus murphy in this case or the other thirty that they rely on an individual has a fifth amendment right against self incrimination and when you have standard conditions three and eleven in these cases that require individuals to give information about themselves this incriminatory and it's compulsory by the way so if you don't know that i do you think do you think they're entitled to miranda warnings i don't know that miranda warnings would be necessary i think a cast of our limitations the more appropriate route of the one i'm sorry the cast garlin the taishan so if the really want a full and frank exchange between the individuals that vengeance and probation officers have a cast our limitations and use a derivative use munity you'll have your full and frank exchange if they have the ability to otherwise prosecute for some sort of law enforcement so i missed that were they what a full and frank exchange but none offenses they should have somebody who is required at penalty revocation to go back in and do jail time the answer truthfully the questions that are posed by your probation officer that you follow the instructions that they can report law enforcement contact we have n c i c which is a tool available to law enforcement that notifies probation officers or at least it's available for their checks if they want to any routine basis with that information's there is a clearinghouse and clearinghouse fashion for probation officers we should have individuals who are forced to give the information over there put in officers isn't it rather uncommon for a probation officer to go to a person's house my impression is a probation service understaff and i don't know where they get the time i don't know if they do that i would like to eliminate the possibility that it happens and so if it does my clients will be out of luck condition was they're allowed for  questions the court had about the nature of the charge in the offense and then get back into the issues of the terms and conditions of supervision the southern illinois case your honour's is money about waiver and we think it's an important opportunity for the court to provide some guidance in that area as judge caney realize southern ohio had a role in this particular prosecution that is where a sixteen year old girl was reported missing by her family she was a troubled girl for privacy reasons there's not an awful lot of elaboration on that in the record when the parents and grandparents this child was having suicidal because there was a plan to put her in foster care she had unbeknownst to anyone been for over two years having an online relationship with this defendant and was very troubled out of control i think the family was at with sand and the grandparents at one point were trying to race or so the investigation started in southern ohio when this child went missing fortuitously she was found in southern illinois during a routine traffic stop with this defendant he had in his possession pornographic images she took of herself the full panoply of charges in southern ohio first included two counts of production of child pornography the theory being this child was over a period of time coerced and encouraged to send these photos there was a charge of online enticement for the ages that she was from fourteen to sixteen and gauged in sexual conversation with this it don't mean he was also charged in southern ohio which transporting her for sexual purposes she was of the age of consent in indiana not in ohio not in illinois  southern illinois proceeded on the transportation of child pornography charge ultimately and ohio he was convicted in plaid to the charge that he traveled in interstate commerce for sex with this child five years the court did consider the guideline range in this case which was higher on the transportation charge than for any other offense and did depart downward based upon the defendant's criminal history category of three overstating the seriousness of his past so the court had discretion did view this as a very serious case if the court viewed it as last serious legally he could have imposed five years but did not well this isn't really child pornography right child pornography is collecting all this stuff and uploading them exchanging it that's a whole strange you know different sentence but if i might turn to the issues of supervised release we're bothered by the idea that mr henderson that has asked for a full raise sentencing in this case in the southern illinois case is a different  than the other three cases and that judge reagan didn't give written notice of intention to impose special conditions and standard conditions of supervised release that was his practice and it was his practice going back as far as june of twenty twelve there was a directive that any objections were due at the time the p s r is filed defense counsel in this case had noticed of these conditions more than three you would with the p s r just as she would file objections to the fee of her so there was more than three months advance notice in this case i am thinking of imposing a condition that you shall have no contact with minors i am thinking of imposing mental health treatment sex offender treatment no objection was filed as sentencing memorandum was filed affirmatively stating that these were appropriate conditions at sentencing in the context of arguing for a below guideline sentence defense counsel indicated that these conditions would serve to protect the public to use them to his strategic advantage this is an issue of wa conditions such as the treatment so we really think that you know this is an issue of waiver conditions being used to strategic advantage and it makes it very different than the northern illinois cases and the idea of a full redo here m sentencing hearings henceforth or dress rehearsals but some of these conditions are very very well your honor they weren't objected to and another thing  a certain responsibility well they can't just give crazy conditions just because the lawyer has an objective your honor in this case of contact with minors for example well in this case i would point out that well what about contact with minors contact with minors what will happen when this defendant is released within seventy two hours hill reports or probation office that's likely going to be in the ninth circuit where he is from and where he's expected to return to a probation officer will explain these terms to him the law is not very satisfactory in other words you have a vague sense and then you have a probation officer officer probation  condition itself which explains what contact with a minor means your honor the probation officer in this case who will likely be in the ninth circuit is an officer of the court he effectuate the queen is not a judge he won't and he is not issue the sentence in a way that's intelligible that's a clear sentence not say i'm sensing you to i don't know some stuff the probation officer will tell you what i mean that's not that's very inexcusable you're saying a judge can give a hopelessly veg sentence and then just leave it to a probation officer to define it in a sensible with a law clerk right say i'm sensitive no contact with minors by law can if you have a problem with that ask my law clerk i can't bother i'm just i'm a judge i can't be bothered with such trivia that's what you're saying i'm not saying that you certainly are saying that i were saying a judge can give an extremely ambiguous sadness and leave it to a probation officer to define this su i don't view this as being ambiguous and we've cited cases that record contact with a minor is extremely ambiguous because it could mean in their example you you sentence i think why are you fighting this why do you object to have judges issue precise sentences when they say twenty years you know what twenty years is when they say contact with a minor you don't know what it means what process would you ideally like to see the district court implement your honor i think the process that judge reagan used in this case which has been expanded upon in our district sense is that the process know this is given in advance there is an opportunity to do it jacked if there is not an objection then the conditions but what are you going to do about it i can tell you that our probation office does now use a written lest propose conditions that is served contemporaneously with the pre sentence i think many of these conditions would require some guidance from the pro bowl why can't the conditions be made clear they can be your honor we now have i think judge why can't the judge say no no erotic no sexual contact with my ears the procedure that exist here in even in this case counsel could if the jack did and proposed alternative language or there could have been a dialogue at the sentencing hearing there was not perhaps the defendant felt he understood the condition y please the court counsel good morning so morning right the with respect to your question judge posner i just began by talking about that the  question is what is being done about it and in answer to your question the thompson case provides you with a very very good illustration of one of the things that's being done in that case the court is using a form with check boxes that include all of the proposed that the special and the standard conditions of release and the judge isn't permitted to check all of the conditions that he is he or she is considering imposing and that notice is given to the defendant before sentencing that notices something that you have a done a fide as it does practice and it is something that is is becoming a practice in most places although would contest the the legal proposition that that notice is required in fact this court decided that it was not required in cases in cases other than those involving conditions that are out of the ordinary and that decision was consistent with the supreme court's decision and here is terry so i don't think there's a legal requirement for it but it certainly is a good practice in terms of getting the rx all of the objections to the surface and getting the a record that's full before it comes to this court with respect to the specific reasons for the wording that's used in any of these conditions you know i was interested because you oppose the caster of limitation  but i mean would you object for instance to including language that states that the defendant can exercise his fifth amendment right to refuse to answer without here but i would say that a better solution might be if this is considered to be a problem and i would note that that that the problem of incriminating information is a pretty narrow piece of the communications that go on between probation officer and send i mean it's not it's not that every single communication they have is going to is potentially going to result in criminal prosecution or revocation quite to the contrary it works the opposite way but a possible solution might be to say that all information provided to the probation officer must be truthful yes because he knows if he if it is not true so he will be going to suffer for it right so that that that little change doesn't require him to answer questions as much as it says you're not to lie which is a big part of what that provision is intended to deal with concept here is or with respect to that particular provision is that the defendant is on supervision and the probation officer is cast with supervising him and it is important that there be a dialogue between the two of them and it's also important that the defendant and supervision understand that the court requires the defendant to cooperate with the probation officer that's an important part of the probation or of what makes the probation office gives the probation officer the authority that the probation officer needs to have you know daily sacrifice do you think that the defendant has a fifth amendment right or fourth amendment right i think he's been interviewed or are search i think that start with the four think that the courts have said that the defendant has a reduced set of rights and under the fourth amendment has reduced minimized expectation of privacy i think that the courts have held this court is not directly addressed this particular topic but the courts have held that the minimally invasive home visit i certainly not something that is prohibited by the fourth amendment is that it does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would extend to forbidding the probation officer from making a brief visit a home visit is not a search it is distinguished in the statute or the searches and home visits are distinguished in the statute there distinguished in the guidelines they're not the same thing and so i would say that a home visit is is not a problem at context of sex offenses so the child exploitation cases those kind of cases those cases are permitted by statute or in those cases the judge is permitted by statute to impose a condition requiring searches home visits or something completely different from them and they are a fundamental part of probation supervisory work not because they go to each person's house frequently as your honor mentioned they are understaffed there are problems but the idea that but they do generally try to visit the home at the beginning of the period of supervision and they do have a practice of making unannounced visits or at least being open to unannounced visit which is a practice that greatly enhances the deterrent value of supervision and so that that doesn't see it that's not a problem at all and i would also state up here where people are complaining about having being threatened based on their and location of their rights and in fact that doesn't really it's not a common issue in part because  communications as i said the communications between the supervisee and the probation officer are not limited to criminal activity and infractions that could result and or statements that could be in criminate him with respect to having to identify contacts with law enforcement which is something that the defense lumped into this discussion i mean that is not incriminating in itself at all i mean if you stop by law enforcement and you tell your probation officer you've been stopped by law enforcement as a defense points out probation office does have access to n c i c so it's not really what it actually does it gives the defendant an opportunity to be up front and deal with it in a way that might actually mitigate problems down the line it's true that when a defendant admits to conduct it makes the process it streamlines the process of particularly an appeal  this court has found on a couple of occasions that there was no there was no factual problem with the with the revocation because the defender that you did with conduct so it's not to say that it's meaningless but the defendant does in this context have the right to as it can focus his right to remain silent and that right is respected and it's not if the defendant on supervision is not in custody and i don't think the miranda warnings are appropriate and i don't think that a categorical immunity system would in any way be helpful to the program of supervision which you know is a difficult problem to begin with well one of the provisions says defend shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the pro probation officer right does not imply that if he or skew have you completed any crimes lately you have to say yes well related to in particular the polygraph situation where a defendant has to go to the treatment program that requires that the defendant make incriminating incriminating statements about his prior illegal conduct those cases make it pretty clear the defendants are not misled by that the defendants are invoking their rights when they want to when they need to and so i would say th  dependence and meet other family responsibilities what's that for well it's one of the business of the government that that the as we said in our br judicial conference and the judicial policy that's that was issued by joshua conference noted that those those that type of conduct is pro social conduct that is correlated with mafia was famous for its family solidarity well that's supporting their dependence on the basis of their criminal revenues well that's true by so you're sending a message you sent a mixed message right it's not the business of the government well i think this is an important thing to focus on because probation through the whole supervision system is designed to assist the defendant in rehabilitation kind of critical we've had this for the last thirty years and are you saying we have no idea whether all this stuff has any beneficial effect well i think that's i think that's and that's something that congress should take a look at our and then the ministry of office that oversees probation well as i understand it the judicial conference develop the policies that underlie that that the policy statement that we refer  in the very policies that underlie the directions given to probation and conducting supervision they also were the ones that developed the forms that use the judicial conference to develop the forms and the language the policy that they took the statutes actually with respect to all of the conditions that we've talked about they are provided for by statute as well as in the guidelines pretty much in the wording that that the judges in are there not mandatory except you know little have followed no they're not but it's it's not as though the judges in our district and in the circuit are just making stuff up and i mean this is this this wording was crafted by the judicial conference and is used you know that based on the recommendation support of dependents you think the judge would make an evaluation is this person actually one of these defenses and have we agree with that judge as we understand i mean this court has identified a problem in the practice of the district courts the prosecutors the defense everybody that's been going on for some time and in response and that is the failure to provide to provide reasons for the imposition of these conditions and also failure to consider the wording you know afresh from time to time we have that what's clear from the thompson case is that the district courts prosecutors and defense lawyers have responded to those issues that this court has raised have have responded are responding on an ongoing basis we have just we have we have judges and districts crafting disclosure statements to go with the p we have judges every day crafting new language that meets you know in an attempt to meet some of the the concerns that this court has raised and also concerns that they've now thought about giving more thought to these issues i know our office is assisting in it we are proposing conditions in a there's additional conference committee that oversees probation and makes recommendations there's a judicial conference committee that oversees the federal offenders and makes recommendations for them so there is a you're not just operating district by district or judge by judge although you it can also be problematic if it's taken too far and and so this is been an opportunity to you know review these issues but as far as these three cases these the fourth one is a waiver but as far as these three cases go we would assert that clearly the plane era standard applies in this context and bird is no plane error here with respect to these cases and the rationale for that is that just despite the fact that they were not given advance notice of the particular conditions that the court was considering imposing this court recognizes that the standard conditions have been imposed regularly i n many many i'm not going to say all but many many cases maybe all cases most cases throughout the circuit and it is not true that there is a surprise feature here the defendants and their lawyers could definitely anticipate that the court would at least consider the imposition of all the standard conditions and i do mean to distinguish the standard conditions from some of the special conditions or the conditions that are crafted by the court for a particular came out tell you why i'm surprised at what point you just said because although perhaps some of these conditions are not ok constitutionally they many are totally d you know that it's a problem well i would add the one response i would have to that is that it's not necessary that the condition be related to the offense a conviction alone some of the conditions are related to the just the necessary aspects of supervision and so it's not true in this court has held that it's not necessary that a particular condition relates specifically to an offense as long as it relates to the purposes of supervision and sentencing this is a tell in other words if someone has and if someone is a mormon it's ok to say you know no well for you last year you know well it wouldn't it would certainly not be and it any kind of deprivation of the mormons right since when do it anyway right but the but i understand your point and i and i and i agree with that i think that's that's where these changes are being felt where there's being a more particular eyes assessment that's a that's appropriate but i just wanted to mention that in the old days was parole ok parole was the deal you get off get out a little earlier maybe a lot earlier but in exchange you subject yourself to all sorts of here it isn't like that you get a long sentence and then you get thirty of these very restrictive it interference with your life thrown on top of it so the whole so the effect of all this is just to make sentences more severe well a lot of pesky little provisions and very can have to deal with a probation officer for the rest of your life well i would i would make two points and one actually i'll just be repeating a point the judge caning made which is that the the conditions that what we're talking about now in terms of the the standard conditions those those conditions normally are not they're not particularly intrusive the standard conditions the special conditions go quite a bit further but most of the standard conditions are relatively  unobtrusive and in the defendant's life and it's he's not getting visits from the probation officer every single day he's not having to report to the probation officer every day and these are conditions that have been in place for a long time without objection and as without objection without objection even during the time that the supervised release is going on you know i mean it's it's this is not been the standard conditions really are in a class that's different from the special conditions not in the sense that they don't need to be justified they do we understand that but they are in a class by this one of the excessive use of alcohol is not one of the stanwell issues i would say that that is an exception to the rest of the standard conditions for example remain within the jurisdiction the defendant in some of these cases has complained about that that restriction well that restriction first of all can be accepted by that the probation officer can make exceptions to that condition where  work or other family needs to present themselves but that condition is designed to facilitate supervision you can't have probation officers needing to travel all around the country to follow her that's why you have you know it's like communist russia right impression is that the the twenty year supervision life supervision terms that you're talking about are really rare but we normally telling us how you know you leave your jurisdiction why not just say if you move you know if you have the probation they are down there well just to conclude unless there are other questions what i would say is that in the three cases that that you're presented with today are cases in which the standard of conditions are the ones that are focused on the and objected to they were not objected to in the court below despite the fact that they could easily have been anticipated and in this case this court has said in a case like this this court has held that it is preferable to encourage the expedient of seeking modification rather than expensive appeals and and more appeals if modification if modification is sought in the district court and is not granted then the defendant can bring that issue to you to this court and then the discussion can be more tethered to reality then it then these discussions tend to be we are visited need for remained in a case like this is no there and there is no possibility that the plane or standard could i'd like to begin with the suggestion that there can be no deprivation of rights because modification is easily added this court looks at its own case lidl see that that's not true modification is routinely denied hearings need not be had findings need not be made individuals don't have counsel the appropriate time to address the conditions is here as opposed to trying to contest the matter modification council later think that is also a problem and so far as the conditions that are suggested to be unintrusive individuals who are living under thirteen or thirty conditions of supervised release have a burden and it is easily shrugged off when we don't live under if we have to file reports all the time we have to be placed all the time if we are having a party with her friends as clients might be doing in the probation officer showing up at their house and appear very inconvenient time that's not so good for them and that's a condition that when you violate you could be subject to a revocation we have an individual who as a citizen has a right to travel and we say it's too burdensome for the probation office to try to supervise those people if they want to move someplace to have a better job and have a better life but their probation officers in those places but the defendants can't go there can't be transferred well th it's if they're going there permanently if you had instances you can recall in which that leaving the jurisdiction was denied yes if i'm running for a permanent or not permanently but if you are in violation status as i understand it with probation you cannot be transferred to another probation office to be supervised there if you're in violation in there are lots of things to violate so you haven't filed your report on time last month while it was nothing is you better be careful i have to do some of the things we've been talking about here i'm not going to subject my peroration apartment to the kind of things you're talking about well i don't think i'm asking for too much when i ask  eighty four when supervised release was introduced i'm not certain that your honor but i go in part to answer your question with a response judge kane's inquiry and that is let's look at the efficacy of what supervised release guys before and subject probation office to anything the endgame is to make sure that it's been well they're not run they're not done to hassle a defendant i don't think are that sometimes individuals have rocky roads with probation officers in there we start to see a laundry list of issues where they have violated this condition that it all stacks up badly for the individual defendant and it allows also when you have multiple terms of supervised release for consecutive terms of imprisonment and i've seen people go in and grade c violations on consecutive terms with imprisonment we have individuals who have all sorts of violations that they meant may never contest because the shortness of the sentence i have individuals come to me and they want to just violate supervised release because they don't have any additional supervision they have a lot to handle when they come out of prison all of these conditions only burden them further it is a surprise by the way for individuals when they show up and get these conditions imposed on them these conditions may be familiar to the court the attorneys but i think there are probably a lot of defendants who have absolutely no notice of these things or the expectations that might well that may be a part of the responsibility defense counsel know what's going to be it is also the responsibility of the court to pronounce  findings for the more judge roemer as to one of your inquiries earlier the process which should be done it should be the government's burden to show why conditions necessary it should be for the probation officer to come in with  pick and show a judge this is what's typically imposed i don't know if the judges ever reviewed the judiciary policy that was referred to i know it wasn't part of any of the sentencings i've ever seen if these conditions are to be imposed in if the government wants them they should propose them they should meet its burden they should meet the government should meet its burden they should show the factors in the particular case the justify the imposition of the given conditions these things are happening here and in so far as the lack of fifth amendment cases of lack of fourth amendment cases again we've got individuals whose sentences sometimes are too low to effectively challenge but then they come back out they have an additional period of supervised release and on that they're in the good graces of anybody when they've violated any of these conditions and they're and worse shape when they come out they have an additional term of supervised release and i don't want to see a condition get changed so that it's a person does not lie to the probation officer problem is it should be just an affirmative duty to provide information it's incriminatory with respect to your fifth amendment rights we shouldn't change the condition as written by congress we should instead notice the natural problem here and that is that the information should not be used against the individual probation can pursue its goals but the individual henderson as the defenders for taking on these cases and of course we th