ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


9th Circuit Invalidates Employment Parole Condition


9th Circuit Invalidates Employment Parole Condition

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently invalidated a condition of parole which restricted a registrant from “engaging in any occupation, business, volunteer activity or profession” that had “the potential to be alone with children.”  In its ruling, the Court agreed with the registrant that the parole condition at issue was overbroad.

The Court noted in its decision that the condition “would leave only professions in industries that rigidly prohibit the presence of minors, such as a bar, casino, or adult-entertainment venue.  The Court also noted that there was nothing in the record to suggest that the registrant “had an ongoing propensity to harm children, particularly random children he might ‘potentially’ encounter on the job.”  The registrant in this case was convicted in Arizona of assaulting a child under the age of 16.

This decision, issued on June 8, has been designated as “not appropriate for publication.”  The decision was issued without oral argument due to a unanimous decision by the panel of judges involved in the case.

Download the decision:

U S v Tullie – Parole Conditions – 9th Cir – 2020


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great news! Keep chipping away at this junk.

I’m curious though what “not appropriate for publication” means?

Means it cant be used as precedent.

Thanks. That’s weird. I had no idea judges can block something off like that. Why wouldn’t this be allowed as precedent in the future?

Exactly. More specifically, they don’t want a barrage of similar claims from similarly affected persons (in this case, nearly everyone on the registry still under supervision).

Don’t know about California, bujt here in Georgia there appears to be an unwritten rule that no judge will rule against his own probation officers regardless of circumstance. I’d bet there’s an element of that in the decision to not publish this particular opinion as well.

Still, I would make the same claim and cite this opinion, if for no other reason to watch the judge struggle with a way to say how it doesn’t apply.

IMO, Unpublished Opinions are total BS and a jury-rigging of the judicial system. Why should some judges NOW get to decide the value of a court case LATER? If your reasoning is valid, Your Honors, your Opinions should be usable. Instead, let’s make another citizen have to prove a similar case from Square One.

Justice may be blind, but she sure knows how to cheat the system.

Given “the unanimous opinion of the panel” the designation as not sound precedent displays the courts admonished the state agent here. In other words, the agency leadership should have known better because of earlier precedents. One sided interpretation of law occured here and through which a man was denied opportunities for employment based upon an overbroad interpretation ( adhoc) of law by the administrative branch.

This type of agency caprice occurs more frequently than folks think. Most of the time however these capricious acts go unchallenged by convicts. This person made a stand and won the day despite the plethora of barriers meant to protect gov actors.

Question: was this just for those with child related offenses? All offenses? Just curious

Sounds like there starting to separate pedophiles from sexoffenders it’s about daam time.
I dont see why everybody should suffer for someone else’s crime..

Good luck

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x