United States v. Lingle
| Decision Date | 26 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:16-CR-187-FL-1 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. John Ervin LINGLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Ethan A. Ontjes, Tobin W. Lathan, United States Attorney's Office, Raleigh, NC, for United States of America.
[Redacted]1
Issues bearing on terms and conditions of defendant's supervised release now before this court have been briefed extensively, and additionally were the subject of hearing July 9, 2021. Defendant's motion for injunctive relief and request for clarification of certain conditions of supervision (DE 104), renewed and supplemented by a request for supervised release status conference (DE 109) which followed the motion's May 4, 2021, denial by text order, forms the basis of the written motion. Defendant's oral motion for clarification of urinalysis testing condition also is before this court.
By way of indictment filed August 2, 2016, defendant was charged with 10 counts of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). On November 16, 2016, defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of receipt of child [Redacted]
Sentencing commenced February 22, 2018, where defendant faced an advisory Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. The court, however, sentenced defendant to the statutory minimum of 60 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 10 years’ supervised release. As relevant here, the court ordered defendant to comply with the following conditions of supervised release:
(Judgment (DE 73) at 3–7). Defendant did not appeal or file motion to vacate his conviction or sentence.
On December 18, 2019, defendant was released from imprisonment and his supervisory term commenced. On March 4, 2021, probation moved for revocation of supervised release based on his recent arrest for felony failure to verify sex offender registration information. On June 9, 2021, probation withdrew the motion for revocation because the state charge had been dismissed. Probation, however, advised that the state prosecutor may seek a grand jury indictment, and that the court will be notified if any charges are reinstated.2
In the interim, on May 3, 2021, defendant filed motion for injunctive relief and request for clarification of certain conditions of supervision, summarily denied the next day, wherein he sought ruling on the propriety of probation's requests to conduct walk-throughs of his residence without reasonable suspicion of a violation of the conditions of supervision, to sign waiver of confidentiality permitting full disclosure of mental health and sex offender treatment records to probation, and to administer certain pre-test questionnaires prior to polygraph examinations. Defendant sought injunctive relief prohibiting probation from mandating walk-throughs of his residence without reasonable suspicion of a violation, requiring full waiver of confidentiality and disclosure of all treatment records, and conducting further polygraphs pending the court's ruling on the motion. In support, defendant relied upon his judgment of conviction, release of information form, email transmittals between defendant and probation, and extracts of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AOC") policies regarding probation and supervised release.
On June 22, 2021, defendant renewed his motion for supervised release status conference, challenging also probation's authority to direct defendant to attend sex offender and mental health treatment with new providers selected by probation. In support, defendant relies on additional emails and release of information forms. On June 23, 2021, the court construed the June 22 filing as a second and supplemental motion seeking to clarify the terms of supervision, directed the government to respond to both the May 3 and June 22 motions, and set the matter for hearing July 9, 2021.3 The government filed its response July 2, 2021, supported by declaration of Senior United States Probation Officer Mindy Threlkeld ("Threlkeld").
At hearing July 9, 2021, the court permitted proffers by United States Probation Officers Eddie Smith ("Smith"), Van Freeman ("Freeman"), and Henry Ponton ("Ponton") regarding probation's requirements for supervision of sex offenders. The court heard testimony by Donald Wolfe ("Wolfe"), defendant's current sex offender treatment provider, as well as officer Ponton, defendant's current probation officer. By oral motion at the hearing, defendant raised a new challenge to probation's enforcement of his conditions of release, arguing that probation lacks authority to require urinalysis testing where he is not currently enrolled in substance abuse treatment.
At conclusion of hearing, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the instant oral motion for clarification of probation's authority to order urinalysis testing and granted defendant's request to incorporate reply to the government's response within his supplemental brief. Defendant filed his supplemental brief on July 16, 2021, supported by emails between defendant and probation, transcript of defendant's recent detention hearing (related to the now withdrawn motion for revocation), and release of information forms. The government filed its supplemental brief on July 26, 2021, supported by new declaration of officer Threlkeld, and extracts of the AOC's policy regarding probation and supervised release. On August 4, 2021, defendant filed statement from Wolfe addressing officer Threlkeld's new declaration.
The court now turns to the background pertinent to defendant's challenges to his supervised release conditions and probation's enforcement or interpretation thereof.
In accordance with the condition of supervision requiring participation in drug treatment, probation referred defendant for a substance abuse assessment at Integrated Behavioral Health Services, Inc. ("IBHS"). (Threlkeld Decl. (DE 119-1) at 1).4 IBHS completed the assessment on January 8, 2020, and determined that substance abuse treatment was not necessary at that time. (Id. ). IBHS noted, however, that defendant should be referred for treatment in the event of a future positive urinalysis screen. (Id. ). Pursuant to IBHS's recommendation for further urinalysis testing, probation requires that defendant submit to periodic urinalysis testing (approximately once every two months), notwithstanding the fact that he is not currently enrolled in drug treatment and the court has not ordered additional testing. (See id. ).
Probation conducts periodic home visits at defendant's residence pursuant to the condition requiring defendant to "allow the probation officer to visit you at any time at your home or elsewhere, and [to] permit the probation officer to take any items prohibited by the conditions of your supervision that he or she observes in plain view." (Judgment (DE 73) at 4; Threlkeld Decl. (DE 113-1) at 1–2). During some of these home visits, probation requests (or, according to defendant, demands) that defendant permit the officer to inspect his residence by conducting a "walk-through" of all the rooms and outbuildings at the residence. (Threlkeld Decl. (DE 113-1) at 1-2). For example, on May 25, 2021, officer Smith traveled to defendant's residence for a home visit, and "requested" permission to conduct a walk-through of the residence. (Id. at 1). Defendant claimed that the walk-through constituted a search and stated that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial