Opinion ID: 149531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Due Process Challenge to Modification of Supervised Release Conditions

Text: Fifth, King argues that the district court violated his due process rights at the initial revocation hearing when it modified his supervised release conditions pending the full revocation hearing by adding a computer search condition without a prior hearing, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(c). King's argument is meritless. The district court held a hearing before adding the computer search condition. Indeed, the district court refashioned the new condition after King objected to the condition as proposed by King's probation officer. King did not object to the refashioned condition. King contends that Rule 32.1(c) prohibits the district court from imposing new conditions without taking any evidence on or sustaining any of the alleged violations. But a Rule 32.1(c) modification as opposed to a Rule 32.1(b) revocation does not require an evidentiary hearing or a violation finding. Compare Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b) (providing for, inter alia, right to evidentiary hearing and counsel before revocation) with Fed. R.Crim.P. 32.1(c) (providing for a hearing, at which the person has the right to counsel and an opportunity to make a statement and present any information in mitigation before modif[ication]).