Fourth Circuit - Supervised Release

United States v. Ka, 982 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2020). A defendant does not have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a supervised release revocation hearing.

United States v. Ellis, 984 F.3d 1092 (4th Cir. 2021). The court abused its discretion when it imposed special conditions of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from accessing the internet and possessing adult pornography. Both conditions were overly broad and not reasonably related the purposes of sentencing.

United States v. Comer, 5 F.4th 535 (4th Cir. 2021). In a sex trafficking case committed through social media, the court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from having any social media accounts without approval from probation. The condition was not unconstitutionally vague, was not overbroad, and did not impermissibly delegate judicial authority to probation.

United States v. Comer, 5 F.4th 535 (4th Cir. 2021). The court did not plainly err in permitting the government and probation to sit at the same table during a supervised release hearing. However, “by sitting at a separate table, the probation officer, as an arm of court, avoids the appearance of impropriety and so promotes the public's confidence in the evenhanded administration of justice.”

United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550 (4th Cir. 2021). The court abused its discretion by failing to address the defendant’s nonfrivolous challenges to five standard conditions of supervised release.

Training Topic: