Arciniega Vs. Freeman

Arciniega vs Freeman

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-26-1971

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102762

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/102762
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Oct-26-1971
Case Number: 404 U.S. 4
Subject: Narcotics

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Narcotics

Key legal issue: Narcotics

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arciniega

Respondent

Freeman

Excerpt

.....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. 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 page 404 u. s. 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. 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 reversed.

Full Judgment

Arciniega v. Freeman - 404 U.S. 4 (1971)
U.S. Supreme Court Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4 (1971)

Arciniega v. Freeman

No. 70-5135

Decided October 26, 1971

404 U.S. 4

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that mere on-the-job contact with fellow employee with police records is sufficient evidence of parole violation, in the absence of a clear directive of the Federal Parole Board to that effect.

Certiorari granted; 439 F.2d 776, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

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.

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

Page 404 U. S. 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.

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

Reversed.

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1971 Same Parties Arciniega vs Freeman Same Subject Narcotics