9th Circuit on Abstention From Alcohol as Supervised Release Condition

It was improper to impose a supervised release condition of abstaining from alcohol on a defendant who had no history of doing anything wrong under the influence of alcohol, the Ninth Circuit held Friday in United States v. Betts.

The Ninth Circuit panel wrote:

No one suggests that alcohol played any role in Betts’s crime. And there was no evidence that Betts had any past problems with alcohol. Under these circumstances, we think it impossible to say that the condition imposed bears a reasonable relationship to rehabilitating the offender, protecting the public, or providing adequate deterrence. ... There was absolutely no evidence of any type of substance abuse or any erratic behavior ... And the judge expressly noted that he did not think Betts had a problem with drugs or alcohol and that he did not consider Betts to be at risk of future substance abuse. In short, contrary to the rationale of our opinions affirming the imposition of the no alcohol condition, nothing suggests that the condition is related to (or necessary for) protecting the public, rehabilitating Betts, or providing adequate deterrence.

As a commenter on the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog notes, the opinion also includes the following Homer Simpson-worthy tribute to the civic engagement involved in guzzling a frothy beer:

Moderate consumption of alcohol does not rise to the dignity of our sacred liberties, such as freedom of speech, but the freedom to drink a beer while sitting in a recliner and watching a football game is nevertheless a liberty people have, and it is probably exercised by more people than the liberty to publish a political opinion.

(Below: Homer Simpson takes advantage of a liberty that is non-sacred but nevertheless protected.)

An earlier post on supervised release conditions involving staying away from drugs and alcohol, in which the condition was affirmed, is here.

(Hat tip: Prof. Berman.)