2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-6-2007 

# Cundi ff v . B e rre m an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3504

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C und i ff v . Be rr e m a n" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 615. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/615T h e H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3504

W A RR EN CU N D I FF, A ppel l ant

v. RO NAL D B E RR E M AN; ANT HONY G OYDE N; M R . G O N Z A L E Z , # 1 8 ; L E O N A R D D O M A N S K I; STEV EN TA LLA RD ; D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S,

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 02996) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2007 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, F U E N T E S and A L A R C Ó N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2007)U nderN . J . St at . § 2C : 43- 6. 4( a) , a per s on convi ct ed of c er t ai n s exual offe ns es 1 m us tbe s ent ence d t o “par ol e s upervi s i on forl i fe, ” and i s t her ebys ubj ectt o var i ous c o n d itio n s o f

re le a s e , s u p e rv is e d b yth e D iv is io n o f P a ro le o f

th e S ta te P a ro le B o a rd . Pur s uantt o t hi s pr ovi s i on, C undi ff a gr eed “ t o s ubm i tt o drug oral cohol t es t i ng atany tim e a s d ire c ted b yth e a ss ig n e d p a ro le o f f ice r.” ( A p p . 4 2 a .) H e a lso a g re e d “ to re f ra in fr om t he pur chas e, us e, pos s es s i on, di s t r i but i on, oradmi ni s t r at i on of anynar cot i c or c o n tr o lle d d a n g e ro u s s u b s ta n c e . . . e x c e p t a s p re s c ri b e d b ya p h y s ic ia n .” (I d .) T he ur i ne s ampl e pr ovi ded byC undi ff w as t es t ed tw i ce— eac h t es tr etur ned a 2 p o sitiv e re su lt. U ndert hatpr ovi s i on, “[a ] per s on w ho vi ol at es a condi t i on of a s peci al s ent ence 3 im p o se d p u rsu a n t to th is s e c tio n w ith o u t g o o d c a u se is g u iltyo f a c rim e o f

th e f o u rth d e g re e .” -2- OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. I n Sept ember2001, W arr en C undi ff, a convi ct ed s ex off ender , agr eed t o under go r andom drug a nd al cohol t es t i ng as a condi t i on of hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on. I n J une 2002, 1 C undi ff t es t ed pos i t i ve fordrug us e i n pr el i m i naryt es t i ng athi s par ol e off i ce, and w as 2 cons equent l yarr es t ed and i m pr i s oned forvi ol at i ng N . J . St at . § 2C : 43- 6. 4( d) . C undi ff 3 r emai ned i n pr i s on pendi ng confi r m at i on of the pos i t i ve r es ul t s byan i ndepende nt l abor at or y . T w o w eeks aft ert he pr el i m i narypos i t i ves , t he par ol e off i ce r ece i ved nega t i ve r es ul t s fr om t he l abor at or y , and C undi ff w as r el eas ed. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 , C u n d if f f iled a c o m p lain t in f

e d e ra l co u rt a g a in st v a rio u s s tate defe ndant s , al l egi ng, i nt eral i a, fal s e arr es t , fal s e i m pr i s onm ent , m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on,-3-

and abus e of pr oces s . I n a thor ough and w el l - r eas oned opi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed t he d efen dan t s’ m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent on al l of C un diff’ s cl ai m s. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent . M or t el l i t e v. N ovar t i s C r op Pr ot ect i on, I nc. , 460 F. 3d 483, 488 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed C undi ff’ s ar gum ent s on appea l , w e w i l l aff i r m fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s etfor t h i n t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s op inion . In d o ing so , w e n o te th at C u n d iff c h all en g es th e p aro le of fice ’s us e of a “pr el i m i nary ” drug t es ti n deci di ng t o arr es thi m forvi ol at i ng t he condi t i ons of hi s r el eas e. C undi ff doe s not , how ever , t ake i s s ue w i t h the t es t ’ s r el i abi l i t y , and i ns t ead as s er t s t hata var i etyof addi t i onal fac t or s s houl d have a l er t ed the par ol e off i ce thathe w as notus i ng drugs . Forexampl e, C undi ff c l ai m s t hathe had no hi s t or yof i l l egal drug us e, t hathe ada m ant l ydeni ed us i ng drugs , and thathe di d notappea rt o be on drugs w hen he t es t ed pos i t i ve. I n s pi t e of thes e cons i der at i ons , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he t w o rel i able, obj ect i ve tes t s for drug use g ave the parol e off i ce prob able cause t o arr est C undi ff.