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


Related posts

Notify of

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great news! Keep chipping away at this junk.

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

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