Malone v. U.S.

Decision Date29 August 1974
Docket NumberNo. 74-1383,74-1383
PartiesCharles Farrell MALONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Peter E. Sheehan (argued), of American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

John D. O'Connor, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

OPINION

Before BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and CRARY, 1 District Judge.

CRARY, District Judge:

On February 23, 1973, the appellant was sentenced to a term of one year imprisonment and fined $1,000 for violation of Title 22, U.S.C. 1934(c) (unlawful exportation of firearms from the United States to the United Kingdom). Execution of the sentence as to confinement was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation for a period of two years on the following terms and conditions:

'1. That he obey all local, state and federal laws;

2. That he comply with the rules and regulations of the Probation Office;

3. That he not participate in any American Irish Republican movement;

4. That he belong to no Irish organizations, cultural or otherwise;

5. That he not belong or participate in any Irish Catholic organizations or groups;

6. That he not visit any Irish pubs;

7. That he accept no employment that directly or indirectly associates him with any Irish organization or movement;

8. That he pay the fine provided for in this judgment in installments arranged through the Probation Office.'

On October 15, 1973, the appellant filed a petition, amended October 31 1973, under Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C., seeking discharge from the conditions of probation numbered three through seven, on the grounds the Court abused its discretion in imposing said conditions in that said conditions violate appellant's rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The District Court determined that there was 'tremendous emotional involvement' on the part of the appellant in the Irish Republican movement. At the sentencing hearing, appellant's counsel stated:

'In considering the probation report there was no profit motive on the part of Mr. Malone. Mr. Malone's motive was something far deeper, emotional from his childhood background and training. It was a mistake, a mistake Mr. Malone admits was something he shouldn't have done * * *. What motivated Mr. Malone is something very deep in his background and something in his childhood, something he learned at his father's knee. It wasn't done with malice and wasn't done for the motive of profit. It was done for what he feels was a noble cause.'

The courts strive to protect freedom of speech, religion and racial equality, but freedom of association may be restricted if reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order. Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241 at 1242-1243 (2nd Cir. 1972).

In Porth V. Templar, 453 F.2d 330 at 334 (10th Cir. 1971), the Court observed that the trial court had the power to restrict the probationer's association with '* * * groups that would palpably encourage him to repeat his criminal conduct. See United States v. Smith, 414 F.2d 630, 636 (5th Cir. 1969).'

The question is, has the Court abused its discretion and acted unreasonably in its effort to prevent the appellant from activities or participation in or contact with groups or organizations that might fan his emotions or in way cause his mind to dwell on subjects or activities which would conceivably encourage him to commit criminal acts of the nature here involved?

Great discretion is allowed a court in setting conditions of probation. As stated by the Court in United States v. Smith, 414 F.2d 630, 636 (5th Cir. 1969):

'18 U.S.C.A. 3651 (1964) authorizes the trial court to place a criminal defendant on probation 'for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best.' Congress obviously intended by means of the broad statutory language to invest the court with great discretion to establish conditions which would lead to the defendant's ultimate acceptance by society * * *'

To like effect, People v. Mason, 5 Cal.3d 759, 764, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 304, 488 P.2d 630, Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
110 cases
  • People v. Lopez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 1998
    ...in issue was not shown to have been group related. 6 (United States v. Showalter (7th Cir.1991) 933 F.2d 573, 575; Malone v. United States (9th Cir.1974) 502 F.2d 554, 555-556, Porth v. Templar (10th Cir.1971) 453 F.2d 330, 334.) In Malone v. United States, supra, 502 F.2d at p. 555, the de......
  • Com. v. Pike
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 19 Noviembre 1998
    ...supra at 148 ("probation conditions must be 'tailored to meet the special problems of particular offenders' "); Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 556-557 (9th Cir.1974), cert. , 419 U.S. 1124, 95 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975). Whether banishment is a valid condition of probation is ......
  • State v. K.H.-H.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 23 Junio 2016
    ...conditions that infringe on constitutional rights may be imposed. In our analysis, we referred to the analysis in Malone v. United States , 502 F.2d 554, 556 (9th Cir. 1974), which held that “freedom of association may be restricted if reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs ......
  • State v. Bahl
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 9 Octubre 2008
    ...necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order.'" Id. at 37-38, 846 P.2d 1365 (quoting Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 556 (9th Cir.1974)). Thus, conditions may be imposed that restrict free speech rights if reasonably necessary, but they must be sensitivel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Anti-prostitution zones: justifications for abolition.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 91 No. 4, June 2001
    • 22 Junio 2001
    ...Owens v. Kelly, 681 F.2d 1862, 1866 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Tonroy, 605 F.2d 144, 150 (5th Cir. 1979); Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 556-57 (9th Cir. (126) State v. Pieger, 692 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Conn. 1997); People v. Pickens, 542 N.E.2d 1253, 1256-57 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)......
  • Outcasts: the exclusion of sexual offenders from social networking sites.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 47 No. 4, September 2010
    • 22 Septiembre 2010
    ...1995). (38.) Id. at 903. (39.) Id. (40.) Id. (41.) 940 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1991). (42.) Id. at 480 (citing Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 556-57 (9th Cir. (43.) Id. (44.) See, e.g., United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the district courts' "broa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT