United States v. Cynthia Hobbs
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22168
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cynthia Hobbs and her husband pleaded guilty in 2009 to aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to commit bank fraud; both received five years supervised release (Hobbs also had 56 months imprisonment).
- Hobbs began supervised release in Nov. 2014 and initially complied, but by Jan. 2016 probation alleged four violations (moved without notice, missed urinalysis, quit job without notice, stopped restitution payments after husband’s Aug. 3, 2015 release).
- At an April 2016 hearing Hobbs admitted the violations; the government asked for modification (not revocation) and requested a no-contact condition with her husband.
- The district court imposed 30 days imprisonment and a special condition: no direct, indirect, or electronic contact with husband Jack Hobbs for the remainder of supervised release, citing the timing correlation between the husband’s release and Hobbs’s noncompliance.
- The record contained Hobbs’s admitted violations and the husband’s release date, but lacked evidence that the husband influenced or caused Hobbs’s noncompliance; defense offered alternate explanations (tax-lien, relapse) and referenced a pending state case without detail.
Issues
| Issue | Hobbs’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a blanket no-contact condition with spouse is permissible on this record | The no-contact condition unconstitutionally and unreasonably restricts the constitutional right to marriage and is not reasonably tailored to supervision goals | The restriction is justified by the temporal correlation between husband’s release and Hobbs’s violations and is reasonably necessary to protect the public and prevent recidivism | Vacated: record insufficient to support sweeping no-contact condition; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review and caution against sweeping restrictions on constitutional rights)
- United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2010) (constitutional challenges to supervised-release conditions reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Schaefer, 675 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting conditions based on speculation; requiring evidentiary support)
- United States v. Fenner, 600 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2010) (limitations on conditions grounded in speculation)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (marriage as a fundamental constitutional right)
- United States v. Smith, 436 F.3d 307 (1st Cir. 2006) (upholding separation condition where contact produced restraining order and trespass notice)
- United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (vacating overly broad no-contact conditions affecting personal relationships)