By: Derek Hawkins//November 7, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Charles Smith v. Paul Anderson
Case No.: 16-2333
Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Fourth Amendment Violation – Parole Violation Report
Charles Smith, a registered sex offender, was convicted of driving with a revoked license and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment followed by one year’s mandatory supervised release. To begin his supervised re‐ leased—often called parole—Smith needed the Illinois Department of Corrections to approve a host site. On his release date Smith submitted two host sites. At that time, the Department had not investigated or approved the proposed sites. A parole supervisor therefore ordered Smith’s parole officer, Paul Anderson, to issue a parole violation report rather than release Smith.
Anderson’s parole violation report contained incorrect statements. Principally, the report claimed that electronic monitoring was a condition of Smith’s supervised release. It also noted that the Department had attempted to place Smith at a host site that would allow him to comply with the electronic monitoring requirement. Neither statement was accurate. Smith spent another six months in custody before the Department released him on good‐time credit. He sued his parole officer, Paul Anderson, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted Anderson’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
On Smith’s release date, the Department had not approved his host site. Instead of releasing Smith, Anderson submitted a parole violation report. The report contained errors. But be‐ cause no court has held that the Fourth Amendment requires prisons to release sex offenders who lack lawful and approved places to live, Anderson’s incorrect statements—even if baseless—cannot form the basis of liability under section 1983
Affirmed