Opinion ID: 196793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Inspect Probation Records

Text: Omisore argues that in denying his motion, the district court violated his due process right to disclosure . . . of evidence against him. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(2)(B). The probation records were not used as evidence against Omisore, however. The technical violations of failure to timely report to the probation officer were continued by the district court without a finding. Moreover, the court directed the probation department to supply the dates of contact, which were recited in court. The evidence against Omisore consisted of testimony by witnesses at the revocation hearing regarding Omisore's use of a stolen credit card. That evidence was fully disclosed to Omisore. Omisore argues that the testimony regarding frequent meetings between Omisore and members of the FOCTF, despite denials that Omisore was being used as an informant, should have alerted the court to the fact that the chronological entries, which logged the probation officer's supervision of Mr. Omisore, may well have contained information which corroborated Mr. Omisore's contentions or impeached the witnesses or both. Omisore never expressly argued the purposes for which he sought the records, however. Under those circumstances, the district court did not err in denying Omisore's motion. -4-