Cutting off a CSOSA-required ankle bracelet does not violate the prohibition on "intentionally remov[ing]" a GPS device that an individual is required to wear as a condition of parole.

Jeffrey Hunt v. United States, No. 13-CM-123 (decided December 31, 2014)

Players: Associate Judges Beckwith and Easterly, and Senior Judge Steadman.  Opinion by Judge Beckwith.  Farin Mirvahabi for Jeffrey Hunt.  Trial Judge: Patricia Broderick.

Facts: At the time of the charged offense, Mr. Hunt was on parole for a 1982 robbery.  The conditions of his parole, which were set by the United States Parole Commission("USPC"), did not include a requirement that Mr. Hunt wear an ankle monitor.  While on parole, Mr. Hunt was supervised by a Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA") officer, who was empowered to encourage Mr. Hunt's compliance with the USPC's conditions of release by imposing "intermediate sanctions."  Mr. Hunt's CSOSA officer required Mr. Hunt to wear an ankle monitor as a "graduated sanction" to encourage more fulsome compliance by Mr. Hunt with the USPC's original release conditions.  The ankle monitor, however, did not serve its intended purpose.  Instead, Mr. Hunt intentionally removed the ankle monitor from his leg.  The government then charged him with violating D.C. Code 22-1211(a)(1)(A), which criminalizes the intentional removal of an ankle monitor that an individual is "required to wear . . . as a condition of a protection order, pretrial, presentence, or predisposition release, probation, supervised release, parole or commitment . . . ."  Mr. Hunt did not deny that he intentionally removed the device but argued that he did not violate D.C. Code 22-1211(a)(1)(A) because the ankle monitor was not "required" "as a condition of . . . parole."  The trial judge rejected this argument and convicted Mr. Hunt.

Issue: Did the government present sufficient evidence that Mr. Hunt violated D.C. Code 22-1211(a)(1)(A), where it was undisputed that Mr. Hunt intentionally removed his ankle monitor; that Mr. Hunt's CSOSA officer had directed Mr. Hunt to wear the ankle monitor as a "graduated sanction"; and that the USPC had not required Mr. Hunt to wear an ankle monitor as a condition of his parole.

Holding: No.  "Conditions" and "sanctions" are distinct concepts, and the "criminal statute here only reaches electronic monitoring 'required . . . as a condition.'"  Wearing an ankle monitor was never a condition of Mr. Hunt's parole; it was a sanction intended to make him comply with the conditions of his parole.

Of note: Your clients cannot be convicted under D.C. Code 22-1211 of removing their ankle monitors unless the individual was required to wear the monitor as a condition of parole/release/probation.  D.C. Code 22-1211 does not apply even if the releasee's "conditions of release include a general requirement to comply with a supervision officer's sanction" and the officer has required the releasee to wear the monitor as a sanction.  The conditions themselves must require the releasee to wear the monitor before D.C. Code 22-1211 can apply.  CK.

Read full opinion here.