By: Derek Hawkins//May 16, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Eugene A. Sweeney
Case No.: 14-3785
Officials: BAUER, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Motion to Suppress – Pleas & Sentencing
District court failure to state support or findings with special conditions of supervised release yields vacated sentence.
“In a recent series of decisions, however, this court has been subjecting the imposition of supervised release conditions to much closer scrutiny than had been common, and we have done so even when no objections have been raised in district courts. In particular, see United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015); but cf. United States v. Silvious, 512 F.3d 364, 371 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding no plain error where district court imposed special conditions of supervised release that were overly broad). The district court neither stated all the conditions orally nor obtained a waiver for doing so, and did not provide any explanation for many of the conditions. In addition, some of the specific conditions imposed here have been found too vague or otherwise improper, though our circuit law is evolving with respect to some of those conditions, such as the requirement that the defendant answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and permit the probation officer to visit his home at any time. See, e.g., United States v. Douglas, 806 F.3d 979, 985–86 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (condition that probation officer could visit anytime between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.). Based on the logic of our recent cases, we must remand the case.”
Affirmed as to conviction
Vacated and remanded as to sentence