Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hulen

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 10, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Andrew Wayne Hulen, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017 Seattle, Washington

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00012-SPW-1 Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

          David A. Merchant II (argued) and Joslyn Hunt, Assistant Federal Defenders; Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Defender; Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, Montana; for Defendant-Appellant.

          John David Sullivan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Leif M. Johnson, Acting United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Billings, Montana; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Richard R. Clifton, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY[*]

         Criminal Law

         The panel affirmed the district court's judgment revoking the defendant's supervised release based on the defendant's admissions during mandatory sex-offender treatment.

         The panel held that a proceeding to revoke supervised release is not a criminal case for purposes of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, and that the district court therefore did not violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination by revoking his supervised release based on his admissions.

          OPINION

          CLIFTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

         The issue in this case is whether admissions made during mandatory sex-offender treatment may be used against a defendant to revoke supervised release. Answering that question requires us to consider whether a proceeding to revoke supervised release is a "criminal case" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

         While on supervised release, Andrew Hulen violated various conditions of his release. He admitted those violations during sex-offender treatment, in which he was required to participate as a condition of his release. Based on those admissions, he was terminated from treatment, and the district court revoked his supervised release. Hulen argues that the use of his statements against him in the revocation proceeding by the district court violated his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. We hold that the district court did not violate Hulen's right against self-incrimination because that right extends only to prohibit the use of an admission in a criminal case. A proceeding to revoke supervised release is not a criminal case for purposes of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

         I. Background

         At the time of the events alleged in this case, Hulen was serving a five-year term of supervised release that followed twelve months of imprisonment for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). As a condition of his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.