We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

COMPELLING REASON NEED TO REQUIRE PSYCH DRUGS ON SUPERVISED RELEASE

Dan Lovato was convicted of a drug trafficking offense, and – in a special condition of supervised release – he was required to take all medications that may be prescribed by his psychiatrist, and to demonstrate compliance through random blood tests.

As an end note to an otherwise unsuccessful appeal, Dan argued the district court committed plain error in ordering the supervised release special condition without making any particularized findings supporting the condition. The Court of Appeals agreed, based on its decision last year in United States v. Malone, and threw out the condition. In Malone, the Circuit held that when a court imposes a special condition that invades a fundamental right or liberty interest, it must justify the condition with compelling circumstances. A defendant on supervised release, it held, has “a significant interest in avoiding the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs.”

“Conditions that touch on significant liberty interests are qualitatively different from those that do not,” the Malone court said, “and their heightened requirement of particularized findings and compelling circumstances is well established… When ‘stock’ special conditions are proposed and the defendant does not object, it is easy to overlook the constitutional implications at stake. But even when the defendant does not object, the district court must ensure that its conditions conform to the Constitution.”

The Circuit threw out Dan’s special condition.

United States v. Lovato, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6019 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root