×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Parole Violation for Working with Ex-Prisoners
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a parolee's work at a business that
employed other ex-convicts did not provide "satisfactory evidence" of a
parole violation. After his parole was revoked, a federal prisoner filed a
writ of habeas corpus which was denied by a U.S. District Court, alleging
that his parole was revoked with no evidence. The Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed at 439 F.2d 776, based solely on the fact that the
prisoner had worked at a night club that employed other ex-convicts
(Federal Parole Board regulations forbid parolees to associate with other
ex-convicts).
The U.S. Supreme Court, on petition for writ of certiorari, held that
revoking a prisoner's parole solely on the basis that he worked around
other ex-convicts did not constitute "satisfactory evidence" of a parole
violation. To hold so, they said, would make parolees subject to revocation
whenever an employer that was willing to employ parolees employed more than
one. See: Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 92 S.Ct 22, 30 L.Ed.2d 126 (1971).
employed other ex-convicts did not provide "satisfactory evidence" of a
parole violation. After his parole was revoked, a federal prisoner filed a
writ of habeas corpus which was denied by a U.S. District Court, alleging
that his parole was revoked with no evidence. The Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed at 439 F.2d 776, based solely on the fact that the
prisoner had worked at a night club that employed other ex-convicts
(Federal Parole Board regulations forbid parolees to associate with other
ex-convicts).
The U.S. Supreme Court, on petition for writ of certiorari, held that
revoking a prisoner's parole solely on the basis that he worked around
other ex-convicts did not constitute "satisfactory evidence" of a parole
violation. To hold so, they said, would make parolees subject to revocation
whenever an employer that was willing to employ parolees employed more than
one. See: Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 92 S.Ct 22, 30 L.Ed.2d 126 (1971).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Arciniega v. Freeman
| Year | 1971 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 404 U.S. 4, 92 S.Ct. 22, 30 L.Ed.2d 126 (1971). |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
ARCINIEGA v. FREEMAN, 92 S. Ct. 22, 404 U.S. 4 (U.S. 10/26/1971)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 70-5135
[3] 92 S. Ct. 22, 404 U.S. 4, 30 L. Ed. 2d 126, 1971.SCT
[4] decided: October 26, 1971.
[5] ARCINIEGA
v.
FREEMAN, U.S. MARSHAL
[6] ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
[7] Author: Per Curiam
[ 404 U.S. Page 4]
[8] Petitioner's parole was revoked by the Federal Parole Board because of association with other ex-convicts. In a petition for habeas corpus, petitioner contended that the record did not disclose any evidence in support of this conclusion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustained the revocation on the sole ground that petitioner worked at a restaurant-nightclub that employed other ex-convicts. 439 F.2d 776.
[9] The Parole Board has wide authority to set conditions, 18 U. S. C. § 4203 (a), and here petitioner was forbidden to "associate" with other ex-convicts. But the Board's own regulations require "satisfactory evidence" of a parole violation to justify an arrest warrant. 28 CFR § 2.35. We do not believe that the parole condition restricting association was intended to apply to incidental contacts between ex-convicts in the course of work on a legitimate job for a common employer. Nor is such occupational association, standing alone, satisfactory evidence of nonbusiness association violative of the parole restriction. To so assume would be to render a parolee vulnerable to imprisonment whenever his employer, willing to hire ex-convicts, hires more than one. Absent a clear Parole Board directive to this effect, we cannot sustain the
[ 404 U.S. Page 5]
judgment of the Court of Appeals that on-the-job contact with fellow employees with police records is sufficient evidence of parole violation. If there is in this record other evidence of forbidden association or evidence of other parole violations, neither the Court of Appeals nor the United States has identified it.
[10] The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[11] Reversed.
[12] Disposition
[13] Certiorari granted; 439 F.2d 776, reversed.
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 70-5135
[3] 92 S. Ct. 22, 404 U.S. 4, 30 L. Ed. 2d 126, 1971.SCT
[4] decided: October 26, 1971.
[5] ARCINIEGA
v.
FREEMAN, U.S. MARSHAL
[6] ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
[7] Author: Per Curiam
[ 404 U.S. Page 4]
[8] Petitioner's parole was revoked by the Federal Parole Board because of association with other ex-convicts. In a petition for habeas corpus, petitioner contended that the record did not disclose any evidence in support of this conclusion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustained the revocation on the sole ground that petitioner worked at a restaurant-nightclub that employed other ex-convicts. 439 F.2d 776.
[9] The Parole Board has wide authority to set conditions, 18 U. S. C. § 4203 (a), and here petitioner was forbidden to "associate" with other ex-convicts. But the Board's own regulations require "satisfactory evidence" of a parole violation to justify an arrest warrant. 28 CFR § 2.35. We do not believe that the parole condition restricting association was intended to apply to incidental contacts between ex-convicts in the course of work on a legitimate job for a common employer. Nor is such occupational association, standing alone, satisfactory evidence of nonbusiness association violative of the parole restriction. To so assume would be to render a parolee vulnerable to imprisonment whenever his employer, willing to hire ex-convicts, hires more than one. Absent a clear Parole Board directive to this effect, we cannot sustain the
[ 404 U.S. Page 5]
judgment of the Court of Appeals that on-the-job contact with fellow employees with police records is sufficient evidence of parole violation. If there is in this record other evidence of forbidden association or evidence of other parole violations, neither the Court of Appeals nor the United States has identified it.
[10] The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[11] Reversed.
[12] Disposition
[13] Certiorari granted; 439 F.2d 776, reversed.