Release.

U.S. Appeals Court

PAROLE- POLICIES DISCRIMINATION

Armstrong v. Davis 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). Disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action against a governor, corrections secretary, and board of prison terms, alleging that policies and practices for parole and parole revocation proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that the defendants engaged in discrimination and entered a system-wide injunction requiring modification of policies and practices. The defendants appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the department's use of notification forms that were inadequate for prisoners and parolees who were visually impaired, deaf, illiterate, learning disabled, or retarded, and the reliance on untrained employees to determine which prisoners and parolees were disabled and what accommodations were reasonable, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The appeals court held that a system-wide inju nction against the board of prison terms was warranted because the board failed to provide effective communications during notification, hearings and appeals, failed to select facilities accessible to mobility-impaired persona, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court noted that the board failed to offer any justification for its failures at trial. (California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority, California Department of Corrections, California Board of Prison Terms)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE- REVOCATION

PAROLE- POLICIES PAROLE- POLICIES

Long v. Gaines. 167 F.Supp.2d 75 (D.D.C. 2001). A class of approximately 400 District of Columbia parolees brought a class action challenging the United States Parole Commission's regulations governing parole revocation procedures. The parolees moved for class certification and summary judgment and the district court granted the motions. The court held that the regulations governing the determination of probable cause were facially unconstitutional and regulations governing final parole revocation violated due process. (U.S. Parole Commission)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE- REVOCATION

Long v. Gaines, 173 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2001). Parolees brought an action challenging the United States Parole Commission's regulation governing parole revocation procedures. The district court held that the revocation procedures were unconstitutional and ordered the defendants to submit a proposed compliance plan. The defendants filed a plan and the parolees filed objections to the plan. The district court held that the proposed procedures complied with due process, where it included provisions requiring a probable cause hearing no later than five days after a parolee's arrest, full revocation hearings between 50 and 65 days from arrest, disclosure of all evidence it intended to consider, and notice of action given to the parolee no later than 86 days after arrest. (United States Parole Commission)

U.S. District Court

PROBATION-REVOCATION

U.S. v. Jefferson, 175 F.Supp.2d 1123 (N.D.Ind. 2001). The government petitioned to revoke the supervised release of a defendant who had failed several drug urinalysis tests and who admitted smoking marijuana almost continually. The government granted the petition, finding that while the supervised release condition prohibiting the releasee's use of drugs substantially burdened the Rastafarian defendant's exercise of a sincerely held religious belief within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the condition was the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government's compelling interest in uniform enforcement of drug laws. The parties had stipulated to the fact that Rastafarianism emphasizes the use of marijuana in ceremonies designed to bring the believer closer to the divinity and to enhance unity among believers. The defendant claimed that his use of marijuana was "for meditation purposes only" and to "give praise to God." (Allen County Work Release Facility, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE- CONDITIONS

Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla. 2001). A parolee sought declaratory judgment that his conditions of his parole violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment, and he moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court held that as a matter of first impression, habeas corpus was not the exclusive means to challenge parole conditions, and that the conditions did not violate the parolee's free association rights. The parole conditions prohibited the parolee, who was a leader of a recognized religion, from worshiping, meeting, or communicating with followers without the prior written consent of his parole officer. The court noted that the underlying conviction established that the leader used religion as a means to exhort his followers to commit numerous racketeering acts including acts of murder. The conditions read, in part: "You shall not associate or have any contact with members of the Black Hebrew group. This includes direct or indirect contact, th rough any means, to include internet, television, radio, phone, written form or in person. This includes residence, employment, social or other activities, without the prior written approval of your U.S. Probation officer." (U.S District Court, Southern Division, Florida)