United States v. Foster
754 F.3d 1186
10th Cir.2014Background
- Foster violated terms of supervised release, including traveling to Massachusetts, leading to a revocation and a new term with a six-month residential reentry center (RRC) condition.
- District court ordered Foster to reside in an RRC for up to 6 months as a condition of supervision, commencing upon release from imprisonment.
- Foster left the RRC on December 27, 2012, without permission and did not return.
- A grand jury indicted Foster for escape from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) on February 12, 2013.
- The district court dismissed the indictment, ruling Foster was not in custody under § 751(a) because the RRC placement was not custodial.
- The government appealed, and the circuit reversed, holding that court-ordered RRC placement can constitute custody under § 751(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement at an RRC falls within custody under § 751(a) | Foster’s custody requires real physical confinement, or the restraint must be custodial by purpose. | Custody can be minimal or constructive; any restraint that limits liberty suffices, and purpose matters. | Yes; court-ordered RRC placement constitutes custody under § 751(a). |
| Whether the district court erred by focusing on the purpose of confinement | Purpose of placement should guide custody determination. | Custody is determined by the degree of restraint, not the sentencing court’s purpose. | Custody is determined by the extent of restraint, not the underlying purpose. |
| Whether the statute § 751(a) is void for vagueness as applied to supervised-release placements | Cruel or vague scope would chill enforcement by vagueness. | Any defendant with fair notice can be charged; statute not vague as applied. | Not void for vagueness; Foster had fair notice and the restraint was custodial. |
| Whether the residence condition can be treated as custody for purposes of the escape statute | Sack and related cases distinguish custodial intent from homelessness-prevention measures. | Court-ordered residence imposes sufficient control to be custodial. | Court-ordered residence at an RRC is custody under § 751(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Depew, 977 F.2d 1412 (10th Cir. 1992) (custody may be minimal or constructive)
- United States v. Sack, 379 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2004) (halfway house custody supports § 751 custody finding)
- United States v. Swanson, 253 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2001) (halfway house restrictions can be custodial)
- United States v. Ko, 739 F.3d 558 (10th Cir. 2014) (real physical confinement not required; custody can be enforced via control and monitoring)
- Burke v. United States, 694 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2012) (purpose of confinement not controlling for custody; focus on restriction level)
- United States v. Edelman, 726 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2013) (addressed custody/halfway house in comparable context)