from ms christiansen after we were i was ordered to address this issue by this court and fire filed our opening brief this court held in the floor as that in cases similar to this one the defendants have waived any arguments regarding an opportunity for this court to address certain conditions of supervisor at least where necessary or important and given the pastor of this case that the court asked us to address the specific issue in regard to metro anderson's case and then racial roach also filed a brief we believe this is an important issue for the that the court's interested in and also one that concerns a vegan overbroad conditions of guys really the federal judiciary can do better in this condition and has done better in the remaining conditions in this case in these cases both of these defendants are required to abstain entirely from alcohol both of them are required to undergo substance abuse treatment and periodic urine testing which would reveal the presence of both alcohol use and drug use ultimately however the problem is that in order to comply with this condition there are many questions there to defend it may have now conditions such as don't use alcohol is very clear don't use alcohol this condition however is a provision preventing them from peter nies ing certain establishment is that so alcohol well that's a very very fuzzy issue because depending on the location many many establishment sell alcohol or serve alcohol and you want to from theaters to convenience stores grocery stores so the hall and it really impacts the defendant's daily living and as this court noted in thomson but the girl scout cookie analogy you know should a defendant try to see if this is legitimate behavior and risk it you can't just ask his probation officer which this court held was not an acceptable way to explain these conditions frankly both the government and defense counsel struggled to define the parameters of these conditions as well the government suggests that bars and taverns that are serving nearly snacks prohibited but places that are restaurants that have extensive alcohol lists but also sell food would be fine that's that's a really fine distinction for someone in mr anderson mr roach is positioned to understand current court should also address the issue because it is ultimately the district court's duty to impose the and enforce these conditions and while the defined and defense counsel in the government have duties as well to object to improper conditions and make those arguments in the district court it is ultimately their star court who isn't forcing these conditions in mr anderson's case he will probably be on supervised release relatively soon in front of the same district court judge mr roach is kings he has a significant sentence to serve him may not appear in front of the same district court were asking their different just district court judge to interpret the condition imposed in this case and finally the condition does not comply with the sentencing commission's recommendations the sentencing commission following in great part this court's precedent found that the frequenting places for drugs are used and sold was no longer an appropriate condition this condition contains the same problem patronize use it is used to mean frequenting and frequenting is not something that can be explained well to a defendant therefore unless the court has further question good morning honors read around below for the united states council we do believe labor lies in this case mr anderson did file an objection to this revised release condition but it was just it was his objection that th didn't apply to me because my friends conduct and not relate to alcohol he did not specifically this objection of from just a court about the vagueness of the term of supervised release therefore we do think that waiver applies and we don't think there's any compelling reason to forgive whatever and we do not think the condition is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad or just begun overbroad on its own so where in wisconsin if you have mr anderson when he's on supervised release sooner than mr roach enter a liquor store to buy a pack of cigarettes one time that is not going to be a violation of this condition the condition is very clear you can't patronize places where the primary sale of alcohol is the where the primary sale of alcohol is the goal of the business so a movie theater they are there to have people the primary purpose is not the sale of alcohol restaurants they want people to eat meals their primary purpose at the sale so it's very different when you think of a patronizing and primary what you don't want mr anderson or mr roach to do is to patronize a wisconsin tavern and sit there and become friends with people even if they're nattering king but eventually somebody that they meet at the bar says oh man buy you a drink today it's that trigger the reason this term of supervised release is important in these cases even when they also have the no alcohol provision is because this frequent teen and well strike that when i could use the term f avoiding these triggers by not having them patronize these establishment it helps them further in their rehabilitation because again it's one thing if somebody is going to drink alcohol they're going to drink it at their home if they don't want to be caught but again it's the danger the trigger of all patronizing these the stablish ment's that could eventually potentially get a supervisee in trouble with their supervising probation officer now  in reality how it works is defendants are often given many many chances a supervised release to have their conduct conform to the terms of supervised release and if there's any question or any potential violation  you know i know the defense counsel says well we can't have the probation office defining what these to mean it has to be the judiciary which goes back to the government's whole point that yes we should stick with waiver under florida's and all the other recent cases because had district to district judges and to dealing with these cases how often is this specific provision imposed i think it is usually because i don't do all the cases but in the cases i have like the one cited in the footnote smith and scott those are both my cases too i think this ois accompanies the supervised release condition what should abstain from album and again the reasoning is by adding this extra condition it's not that it's redundant it's not it just helps defendants not patronize places where they could potentially you know cross the line and engage in the use of alcohol or maybe they otherwise wouldn't if they only got you know a little movie theater if there's if there's waivers here the defendant that has some alcohol abuse in his or her background in the next case where this particular condition is proposed th fully able right to engage in a colloquy with the district judge about this word patronizing yes because miss christiansen makes some fair points about it i mean i don't i don't have any idea for example whether a t g i friday's is a is a place that fits or not and if i was on supervised release and i had this condition i have a bunch of concerns in my mind about can i go in and not go to the bar of course but can i go in and you know meet a friend for dinner yes like that's also a lot of ystem with florists and all the other recent cases and then the next case where this is proposed the next defense council says either just peterson or george can't just calmly may we please visit this term maybe clean up the language mean we do this and there's nothing that then prohibits them from modify those conditions if they're acceptable to all modifying them because it should be with the discord but it certainly should not be every man in t which there was a gambling addiction and there might have been supervised release condition to stay out of a casino i'm trying to think through analogues to the temptation question which you do for the record i don't like color fraud cases this but just having been a prosecutor for twenty five years i would say that that would be an approach as supervised release it is to try to help people not put themselves in  situations that will trigger their addiction and should not have them going to the nose then that would serve the purpose of rehabilitate that's what the perp because it using that gambling example sunday just like with drinking you can see in your home any defendant on supervised release who has that condition of no gambling could call a poker game in their house any given night and the probation officer is not going to know that but  rebuttal thank you your honor i think the analog to temptation there isn't the adkins case addressed that such lee stimulating material sexually explicit material that that was too broad because yes it does trigger  some sex offenders to move perhaps go out and offend again but the language that was too broad because it does got include limitations that the defendant understood in that he said talk about billboards that are sexually explicit you can avoid those things the same thing with alcohol billboards if you stay at home and that you watch nearly anything on t v there's going to be an alcohol and particularly during sporting events and here we've got four  would that have been sufficiently protect i don't think so because of the patronise is also true of the problem and the government relies on this idea of the wisconsin tavern and i'm not from wisconsin i know there's romo is i don't know what it was constant terror is there are a lot of them but it sounds like something that's on every street corner and they have very limited free snacks i'm not sure but if that's something that's you understood by all wisconsinites then perhaps that's very clear he can't go or they can't go to those things but what's not clear is when the government provides examples of you know you can go to the theater just that's not the primary sale everybody knows better restaurants imes i don't know i can't advise my client to go to a friday's but don't go in the bar area i think that the trigger concept doesn't understand the nature of substance abuse and addiction is that if you are in the addict you are going to search out these things regardless of triggers in ads or restaurants or bars or taverns that just doesn't understand the trigger concept and these these defendants are going to have to attend substance abuse treatment which will hopefully address those issues and simply abstaining will also address those issues they know they cannot drink even if they go to a place that only has popcorn and peanuts  socialize or to play volleyball or cornhole whatever one plays it was constant tavern if that's part of it  in we agree the waiver is the waiver issue is a problem floor's does apply but we do believe that this court can address the issue it is becoming not a standard issue in every case a standard can issue every case but it is fairly common the cases that are consolidated here and pending this decision are all madison cases i have not seen this condition outside of madison and the concern is that although the defense bar should be objecting to and believe me i have a forum in which i advise defense attorneys all the time to make these objections and that i don't think it necessarily falls on deaf ears but i think the focus is perhaps somewhere else the probation officers and the district courts have listened when this court has given a directive to stop doing something and i know for the jurisdictional leaving the jurisdiction the court issued an opinion and sent her to all the district clerks offices saying pay attention to this and that's what makes the