United States v. Jewel Aquino, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12486

Aquino pleaded guilty to sex-trafficking-related offense and was sentenced to prison plus supervised release with Standard Condition No. 3 (must answer probation officer truthfully).
On May 28–30, 2014, Aquino appeared slurred, denied using alcohol/medication/illicit drugs to her probation officer, later passed out in a car accident, and a presumptive drug screen was positive for “spice” (synthetic marijuana).
Aquino admitted smoking spice and said a friend told her it would not show on a test; a laboratory test screening for 15 synthetic compounds was negative for controlled substances.
The probation officer alleged Aquino lied in denying use of illicit drugs; the officer did not testify at revocation hearings and the prosecutor offered no additional context.
The district court found a violation of Standard Condition No. 3, revoked supervised release, sentenced Aquino to three months’ imprisonment (plus remaining supervision), and imposed Special Condition No. 9 banning use/possession of substances she believes mimic controlled substances.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded: it held the government failed to prove the alleged false statement and found Special Condition No. 9 unconstitutionally vague as written.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether government proved Aquino lied when she denied using "illicit drugs"	Government: denial was untruthful given admission she smoked spice and positive presumptive test	Aquino: lab test did not show controlled substance; denial may have been literally true	Reversed — insufficient evidence to prove untruth by preponderance; literal truth defeats falsity claim (violation vacated)
Whether probation officer’s allegation (without testifying) sufficed to sustain revocation	Government: written allegation and surrounding facts suffice	Aquino: lack of witness and lab confirmation leaves allegation unsupported	Reversed — prosecutor failed burden; absence of probation officer testimony limited proof
Whether Special Condition No. 9 (ban on substances she "believes" mimic controlled drugs) is permissible	Government: condition aims to prevent relapse/impairment and protect public safety	Aquino: condition is vague and could criminalize innocuous items (coffee, chocolate)	Vacated as impermissibly vague; court remanded for a narrower, clear condition
Appropriate alternatives for a lawful special condition	Government: needed to prevent use of impairing synthetics	Aquino: narrower options include controlled-substance analogues or impairment-focused language	Court suggested permissible alternatives (ban on psychoactive substances that impair; prohibition on controlled-substance analogues with mens rea or prescription exceptions)

Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (literal truth cannot be treated as falsity)
United States v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.) (literally true statements are not false for perjury-type offenses)
United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency on supervised-release revocation)
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.) (court cannot rely on government promise to enforce condition narrowly)
United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir.) (rejecting vague condition banning "mood altering substances")
United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.) (suggested formulation: ban psychoactive substances that impair functioning)
United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion to craft special conditions)