By: Derek Hawkins//May 9, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Paul A. Carson
Case No.: 15-2899
Officials: POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Condition of Supervised Release
Condition of supervised release calling for probation officer to visit home of appellant constitutional and not in violation of 4th amendment.
“If this judge’s statement that the home-visit condition will enable the probation office to “keep watch” and help enforce the other terms of release implies that a home-visit condition would be appropriate in every case: why is that a problem? True, the Sentencing Commission did not put a home-visit condition on the list of eight mandatory conditions. U.S.S.G. §5D1.3(a). It is instead tenth on the list of standard conditions that the Commission recommends. U.S.S.G. §5D1.3(c)(10). (The district judge did Carson a favor; the Sentencing Commission’s standard condition 10 says that the probation officer may visit the release “at any time at home or elsewhere”.) We cannot see anything in either the statutes or the Guidelines that forbids a district court to impose one of the standard conditions in every case. District judges may set their own sentencing policy. See Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007); United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A judge who believes that standard condition 10 should have been mandatory condition 9 is entitled to put that view into practice, just as a judge who thinks that crack and powder cocaine always should be treated identically is entitled to put that view into practice and to do so without an elaborate statement of his penal philosophy in every case.”
Affirmed