United States v. Steven Dean
16-15038
11th Cir.Dec 1, 2017Background
- Steven Dean, on federal supervised release after a 1989 federal cocaine-conspiracy conviction, was later convicted in Florida (2014) of aggravated child abuse for conduct involving a 10‑year‑old victim.
- After the state conviction, the probation office filed a superseding petition and the district court revoked Dean’s federal supervised release.
- The district court sentenced Dean to 24 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release and imposed three special conditions: (1) no unsupervised contact with children/minors (including the victim); (2) participation in sex‑offender treatment including psychological testing and polygraph; and (3) consent to unannounced warrantless searches of person, property, computers upon reasonable suspicion.
- Dean appealed, arguing (a) he was denied due process/notice and the court relied on hearsay, and (b) his conviction does not make him a sex offender so the special conditions (especially warrantless searches) were improper.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed under plain‑error standard (most objections were not preserved) and affirmed, holding the court did not plainly err in imposing all three conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dean) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean was denied due process/notice and whether the court impermissibly relied on hearsay when imposing special conditions | Court imposed conditions without adequate notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard and based them on layered hearsay in the R&R | Dean had constructive notice via the R&R/PSI; hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings if reliable; Dean failed to object in district court | No plain error: defendant was not entitled to extra notice; court properly relied on unobjected‑to R&R; hearsay in revocation proceedings is permissible if reliable and Dean did not show it was false or pivotal |
| Whether requiring sex‑offender treatment (psychological testing and polygraph) was improper given Dean’s conviction did not involve a sexual offense under state law | Dean: condition is improper because conviction doesn’t classify him as a sex offender under Florida law | Court: § 3583(d) permits conditions reasonably related to § 3553(a) goals; mental‑health conditions fit policy statements and prior precedent allowing treatment based on history | No plain error: treatment and polygraph were reasonably related to history/need for supervision and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether a warrantless‑search condition (of property and electronic devices) was improper because Dean is not a SORNA registrant | Dean: search condition tied to SORNA should not apply to non‑sex‑offender felons | Court: § 3583(d) allows any appropriate condition; Sentencing Guidelines recognize search conditions may be appropriate beyond sexual‑offender cases; circuits have upheld such conditions in non‑sex cases | No plain error: search condition was statutorily authorized, reasonably related to supervised‑release goals, limited by reasonable‑suspicion standard, and not overly restrictive |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moran, 573 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2009) (defendant not necessarily entitled to special‑condition notice where PSI/R&R contained sexual‑misconduct allegations)
- United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard review of special conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842 (11th Cir. 1991) (hearsay admissible in revocation hearings if it bears indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2003) (special conditions need only be reasonably related and may be narrowly tailored; permitting supervised‑contact exceptions)
- United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (warrantless‑search condition can be appropriate outside sex‑offender context and consistent with Guidelines)
- Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982) (search conditions help deter crime and assist supervision; upheld warrantless searches in supervision context)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees may be subject to suspicion‑less searches under certain state parole regimes)
- United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding broad search condition in a non‑sex criminal case)