United States v. Rudolph Stanko
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15415
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Stanko, on supervised release, was required to complete a PCRA form with 80 self-assessment questions.
- He refused to answer, invoking Fifth and Ninth Amendments, claiming the questions sought to dissect his personality for future proceedings.
- The probation office petitioned to revoke supervised release based in part on his failure to answer truthfully.
- The district court found a violation and sentenced him to seven days’ imprisonment with no supervised release afterward.
- Stanko appealed, arguing his Fifth Amendment rights were implicated by the compelled responses.
- The panel and court ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot on finished release status? | Stanko contends continuing injury exists or repetition possible. | Government argues no continuing injury and no capable-of-repetition exception. | Yes; appeal is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (continuing collateral consequences required to avoid mootness)
- Dunlap, 719 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam; mootness when no ongoing injury)
- Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (one-size-fits-all questionnaires raise concerns)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (parole revocation and Fifth Amendment considerations)
- Allmon, 594 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2010) (limits on post-release reviewability)
- Nace, 418 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2005) (mootness considerations in supervised-release context)