{"id":6092,"date":"2011-12-07T09:31:04","date_gmt":"2011-10-01T14:50:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-10-01T14:50:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6092","title":{"rendered":"CA1: A revocation warrant of supervised release is not required to be on \u201csworn facts\u201d under the Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

A revocation warrant of supervised release is not required to be on \u201csworn facts\u201d under the Fourth Amendment, noting a split in the circuits. United States v. Collazo-Castro<\/a>, 660 F.3d 516 (1st Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n

We conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant based on an oath or affirmation to revoke an individual on supervised release. \u201cAn oath or affirmation \u2018is designed to ensure that the truth will be told by insuring that the witness or affiant will be impressed with the solemnity and importance of his words.\u2019\u201d United States v. Brooks, 285 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Turner, 558 F.2d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 1977)). Probation officers, who notify district courts of alleged violations, are supervised by the courts. See United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 22 n.6 (1st Cir. 2004). Because probation officers \u201cfunction as an \u2018arm of the court\u2019\u201d they possess a unique role that does not require the same safeguards imposed on ordinary affiants by the Fourth Amendment. Id. (quoting United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 5 n.1 (1st Cir. 2000)). Because a probation officer\u2019s credibility is typically known by the district court, and because she is an officer of the court, an oath or affirmation is not required either to ensure credibility or to impress the officer with the consequences of failing to tell the truth. While it is now considered a best practice to seek a revocation warrant based on sworn facts, an oath or affirmation request is not constitutionally mandated. Because the warrant was valid, the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the appellant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}