U.S. v. Siegel

Dist. Ct. erred in imposing as terms of defendants’ supervised release, conditions such as bans on possession of any material containing nudity, use of mood-altering substance, or excessive use of alcohol, since said conditions were either too vague to be followed or covered conduct that was unrelated to their convictions. Moreover, Dist. Ct. gave inadequate explanations for why said conditions were being imposed. Ct. also generated list of “best practices” for Dist. Ct. to follow when imposing supervised release conditions that included: (1) requiring probation service to generate any recommendations for supervised release two weeks before sentencing hearing; (2) making independent judgment of appropriate nature of said recommendations that looked to particular conduct of defendant; and (3) requiring defendant to attend hearing with sentencing judge shortly before his or her release date to remind defendant of said conditions and to make any changes to said conditions.