United States v. Brent Vreeland, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13307

Vreeland convicted January 2005 for conspiracy to defraud; sentenced August 2005 to 13 months and 3 years supervised release with restitution over $22,000.
February 2008 home invasion investigation linked his car and he became a suspect; co-suspect Russell pled guilty in March 2009 and testified at Vreeland’s trial.
March 10, 2008 Vreeland met detective with attorney; he refused to answer questions.
March–Sept 2008 ongoing investigation; August 2008 prosecutor declined to prosecute; September 2, 2008 probation officer Bobo instructed monthly reporting.
October 3, 2008 monthly probation meeting: Bobo questioned him about the 2008 incident; Vreeland denied knowledge of Russell; two written statements denying knowledge and contact were signed.
April 23, 2009 Vreeland indicted for two counts of false statements under § 1001; October 2009 bench trial and revocation hearing; convicted on both counts and all five supervision violations; sentences: 24 months concurrent for false statements and 24 months consecutive for amended revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probationer’s statements to a probation officer at a monthly meeting are protected by the Fifth Amendment.	Vreeland asserts Fifth Amendment self-incrimination applies to those statements.	Statements were voluntary; not made under custodial interrogation or compelled; Murphy controls.	No Fifth Amendment protection; statements not compelled.
Whether the statements fall within the judicial function exception to §1001(b).	Horvath/Manning logic show statements could be submitted to a judge via PSR.	Probaton meeting is administrative, not judicial; not submitted to a judge.	Not within §1001(b); not protected by judicial function exception.
Whether the district court correctly held the probation meeting was not a judicial proceeding and that §1001(b) does not apply.	Meeting could be construed as submission to court through probation process.	Probation officer acts in administrative capacity; meeting not a judicial proceeding.	Meeting is administrative; §1001(b) does not apply.

Murphy v. Minnesota, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Fifth Amendment not self-executing for probation interviews; custodial analysis not triggered)
United States v. Miller, 910 F.2d 1321 (6th Cir. 1990) (Probationer’s statements to probation officer not compelled; not custodial interrogation)
Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1998) (Fifth Amendment protects silence, not false testimony; lying is not protected)
Horvath, 522 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2008) (Judicial function exception debated; not controlling here; probation context distinguished)
Manning, 526 F.3d 611 (10th Cir. 2008) (Judicial function exception analysis; probation officer role debated)
Inserra, 34 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1994) (Pre-enactment; probation statements administrative, not adjudicative)
Grimes, 54 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 1995) (Supervision reports are supervisory, not adjudicative; §1001 applies)
United States v. Saechao, 418 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (Precedent on compelled statements and probation conditions)
United States v. McNeil, 362 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2004) (Judicial proceeding concept discussed in statutory interpretation)