YOUR LIFE ON THE LIST CHAPTER 2:
BEING “ON PAPER”: SUPERVISED RELEASE, PROBATION, PAROLE
Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com
8 Nov. 2025

INTRODUCTION

I have been fortunate to have never been on any form of supervision; in Alabama prison slang, I “EOS’ed” (reached End of Sentence or EOS date). But I’ve heard enough horror stories to know that being “on paper” (probation, parole, supervised release, or similar programs) exacerbates the already difficult task of being forced to register. Since I do not have personal experience with being on paper, I am sharing one personal story from the 2023 book, “From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear” by Emily Horowitz. (Excerpts from pages 68-74, edited for brevity)

“Reed” (not his real name) has been on probation for 20 years. In that time, he’s ‘been violated’ for several non-SO violations, one of which was for smoking pot while on an approved trip to California, where pot is legal, one count of “reckless driving,” and failing to disclose every place he visited as required when on Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS). The IPS regimen contained many debilitating requirements including requiring those on it to record every location they visited, even if it was to stop at an establishment to use the restroom. Those on the program mockingly referred to IPS as “In Prison Soon” because the rules were difficult to follow. Each violation landed Reed in jail for 60 to 90 days followed by a new round of IPS. He was also required to restart a sex-offense treatment program that took 3-6 years to complete.

Reed said each time he was sent back to treatment, the program treated him as if it was his first time receiving treatment, even if the violation did not include sexual behavior. He had to write an apology letter each time to his victim (she was a family member and they had reconciled years ago) that he couldn’t share with anyone other than the therapist. Those who got emotional during group were shamed for “victim posturing”, which would delay graduation from the program. Those in group learned to repress their true feelings and play along with the therapist’s beliefs and demands. While on treatment, Reed could not view porn and had to report any sexual fantasy, including dreams, only to be berated for doing so. In one treatment group, he was told he could masturbate to fantasies of age-appropriate adults and have a “two-second rule” (i.e., allowing a brief lustful glance at a beautiful person); but another treatment group said no to both previous suggestions and told Reed that he could masturbate only to fantasies of a former wife/girlfriend. Reed was subject to penile plethysmographs as well as polygraphs at a cost of $200 per test. If he failed, he would have to retake the test (and pay more money).

If Reed dates, he must tell the person by the third date about his status. On PO stated Reed that he could date a woman with a child ONLY if the woman paid for special classes and got “deputized” as a “law enforcement proxy official.” After one woman went through that process, she was still denied the right to date Reed. The PO rules for dating also include age requirements (no more than eight years’ difference), no online dating, no bars, and no one with a felony.) All outdoor activities must be approved even for friendly outings. Reed’s PO forced him to quit and remove from the internet information about Reed’s side hustle working as a paid actor; he had landed minor roles in local TV ads and even a bit role in a movie.

His ex-wife and children were denied from being allowed to see him for years before being allowed one visit per month, on the condition he was never alone with the children. Once, they were denied a visit for Father’s Day so they left him a cake outside his front door.

Reed’s story may not be indicative of the average supervision period. Other nightmare scenarios like getting a probation violation for being late to a therapy session certainly make headlines. But thousands of RPs also successfully finish periods of supervision.

Many folks seem to be confused about issues related to supervised release, probation, or parole. If you are subjected to any of these processes, you are considered to be “on paper”). Those who are “on paper” have fewer rights than non-supervised Registrants. For example, you cannot refuse a warrantless search while “on paper” but certainly have that right if you are not under supervision.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A PROBATION/PAROLE OFFICER AND A REGISTRATION OFFICER

There are similarities between sex offense registration and supervised release. Both require you to check in periodically under penalty of law, both may show up at your house, and both may require you to pay fees. But, being forced to register is NOT the same as being “On Paper.” Registration officers are NOT probation/parole officers (POs). A PO may be able to make certain rules setting curfews or requiring you to go to counseling. A Registration officer’s only duty is enforcing SO laws, particularly the act of entering registration information, verifying your address, ensuring your residence is with the prescribed distance from prohibited areas (where applicable), and community notification (if applicable). Registration Officers do not make rules; they merely enforce existing laws. Registration officers cannot create new rules for you to follow. Though registry officers may conduct at-home or at-work compliance checks, they cannot enter your home without your permission or a warrant unless you are “On Paper.”

Registration officers will take complaints from citizens who assume registration officers and POs are the same. Some LEOs hope you don’t understand the difference; they hope you will continue to follow rules that no longer apply to you. For example, some local agencies promoting Halloween curfews that apply only to those on probation or parole, may omit that information when talking to the media or in press releases. They do this in hopes of luring registrants to follow rules that they are no longer required to follow. It is your responsibility to know your rights.

RULES YOU MAY FACE WHILE ON SUPERVISION

Registrants “On Paper” will face more rules, and more oversight than RPs “Off Paper” or non-RPs “On Paper.” Rules vary by state or other jurisdiction (Federal has their own rules), and while you can find the rules of supervision through an online search for some states, some states still DO NOT post the rules of supervision online. I cannot possible cover the rules of every state/territory in this book. Many states have entire books containing rules and regulations. In this section, I will use a few rules published by states that have explicitly published their rules online for illustrative purposes. You may experience more or less stringent rules depending on your classification or which PO becomes your supervisor.

In the following discussion of these types of rules, I will use Wisconsin as an example because their rules are publicly posted online. As stated, rules can vary state-to-state; however, many supervision rules have similar restrictions to those in Wisconsin. (Note: These rules were extrapolated from the WIDOC website in 2021 and may have changed since then; the publication of these rules is for illustrative purposes only.)

There are standard rules (rules that apply to all under supervision) and discretionary rules, i.e. additional rules that could be added to your terms of release by the courts or a PO. This means you can have additional rules placed upon you on top of the standard set of rules required by everyone under supervision.

In Wisconsin, there are 18 “standard rules of Supervision,” including notification for changes of housing or employment status, the payment of court and monitoring fees, getting permission to travel; borrow money; organize an event; subject yourself to random home/drug searches, and the requirement to attend all mandatory meetings, etc. The last Wisconsin general supervision rule is to “Comply with any court ordered conditions and/or any additional rules established by your agent. The additional rules established by your agent may be modified at any time as appropriate.” In other words, the PO has discretion to make up his/her own rules.

Wisconsin has the following stipulations specific to RPs (copied verbatim, 2021):

• “Have no contact or attempt contact with (blank space to add whoever the PO desires) nor with any prior victims of your offenses nor their family members without prior agent approval. Contact includes face-to-face contact, contacts facilitated by third parties and any other forms of communication including but not limited to telephone, computer, mail and any other electronic or scientific means.
• Fully cooperate with, participate in, and successfully complete all SO evaluations related to risk and treatment.
• Fully cooperate with, participate in, and successfully complete all SO services deemed appropriate through the SO evaluation process. Successful completion shall be identified through completion criteria determined through the sex SO standards.
• Not reside nor “stay” overnight in any place other than a pre-approved residence without prior agent approval. “Overnight” is defined as the daily period of time between the hours of _ pm and _ am unless redefined by your agent in advance.
• Permit no person to reside nor stay in your designated residence between the hours of _ pm and _ am without prior agent approval. (Times defined by agent.)
• Comply with any additional SO rules that may be established by your agent. The rules may be modified at any time as appropriate.”

As the information above clearly indicates, the “agent” (either the PO or the court) has power to change or add rules to the terms of supervised release in Wisconsin.

Compare that with a set of special rules for RPs under supervision in Mohave Co., AZ (January 2024):

• Do not initiate, establish or maintain contact with any male or female child under the age of 18, or attempt to do so, without the prior written approval of the probation officer, as may be amended. Sign and abide by the Probation Department definition of “no contact.”
• You shall not reside with any child under the age of 18 or contact your children in any manner, without the prior written approval of the Court or the Probation Officer.
• Do not enter the premises, travel past, or loiter near where the victim resides without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer. Do not correspond, have telephone contact, or communicate with the victim through a third party.
• Do not go to or loiter near places primarily used by children under the age of 18 such as, but not limited to, schools, schoolyards, parks, playgrounds, arcades, swimming pools, parades, carnivals, circuses, etc. without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.
• Do not knowingly date or socialize with any person who has children under the age of 18 without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.
• Attend, actively participate, and successfully complete sex offender treatment and remain in such treatment at the direction of the Probation Officer.
• Submit to any program of psychological, physiological, or ongoing risk assessment at the direction of the Probation Officer, including, but not limited to, the penile plethysmograph and/or the polygraph, to assist in treatment, planning, and monitoring.
• Authorize therapists to disclose to the Court and Probation Department information about your attendance and progress in treatment.
• Register as a sex offender with the Sheriff of the county in which you reside within 10 days of the sentence and/or change of residence and comply with all D.M.V. identification requirements pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3821 and 13-3822.
• Submit DNA testing pursuant to A.R.S. 31-281.
• Abide by the curfew imposed by Probation Officer.
• Do not possess, or in any way attempt to obtain by telephone or any other instrument, any sexually stimulating or sexually-oriented material in any form as deemed inappropriate by treatment staff, or patronize any adults-only establishment where the material is available.
• Be responsible for your appearance, including but not limited to, the wearing of undergarments and appropriate non-sexually stimulating clothing in locations where another person may be expected to view you.
• Do not possess, use, or have access to any computer or similar equipment that has internet capability without prior written permission by your Probation Officer.
• Do not hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers.
• Do not operate a motor vehicle without the prior written approval of your Probation Officer.
• An in-custody defendant may be released to the Probation Department and returned to the Mohave County Jail only for the purpose to attend, participate, and complete any sex offender testing, therapy, and counseling as may be required by the Probation Department without further Court order.

If you are placed on a higher tier level, you might face extremely onerous sanctions while On Paper. For example, under Texas’s special “Condition X” guidelines, a Registrant cannot travel outside of the county of residence and cannot “go in, on or within a distance specified by Board policy (usually 500 feet) of a premise where children commonly gather, including a school, day care facility, playground, public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility.” This has been applied even to travel, so even getting to a grocery store may prove virtually impossible since it might require you to drive within a prohibited zone. Other Condition X rules include random polygraph exams, a ban on owning or using any electronic device with Internet access, possess any item that could be considered “pornographic”, or have any unsupervised contact with minors. While Condition X represents possibly the most extreme conditions in the US, a number of states may have similar rules of supervision in place or could be added as a discretionary condition by an individual PO.

The most vague of these rules restrict loitering near or entering an area “frequented by minors”, used “primarily” by minors, or places “where children congregate”. There are few places in America where children are not allowed at all, like adult businesses like bars or “adult” stores, or maybe a dangerous site like a construction zone. However, unless you have a very unreasonable PO, you should be able to figure out which establishments cater to minors. Businesses that would likely be viewed as catering primarily to minors include restaurants like Chuck E Cheese, toy stores, youth centers, or even a pediatrician’s office. Certain events like a circus or county fair, or an event where amusement rides for children are erected might be off-limits, however, even if the event isn’t solely for minors. If someone says, “That’s for kids”, then that place is probably off limits. If in doubt, ask your PO for permission to go to the event or establishment in question.

In short, you will likely face additional rules compared to those on supervision for other offenses, some of which can be as restrictive as living behind bars and some rules can be vague.

Federal cases on paper

For federal parolees, mandatory conditions of supervised release are set forth in 18 USC §3583(d) and USSG §5D1.3(a). These mandatory conditions include that a defendant not commit another offense while on supervision; refrain from unlawful use of controlled substances and submit to drug testing; make restitution to the victim of the offense; and submit to the collection of a DNA sample, among others. The only additional mandatory stipulation for Registrants is the requirement to register according to the laws of your jurisdiction of residence (18 USC §3583(d); USSG §§5D1.3(a)(7)(A) and (B)).

Many districts have set forth standard conditions of supervision in general orders, usually available on the US District Court’s website. Sentencing courts have discretion to impose any of the conditions listed in §5D1.3 or to create and impose “any other condition it considers to be appropriate.” A discretionary supervised release condition may be imposed if it is “reasonably related” to the statutory sentencing factors in 18 USC §3553(a)(1) and §3553(a)(2)(B)-(D). These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant, and the need to provide educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment, involves “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to serve the purposes of deterrence, protection of the public, and training and treatment; and is consistent with any policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
The guidelines recommend that, in every case, the court impose the 15 “standard” conditions of supervised release set forth in USSG §5D1.3(c). These standard conditions require the convicted person to:

• Obtain permission to leave the area,
• Report to the probation office as directed,
• Maintain or seek employment,
• Avoid excessive alcohol use and any use of a controlled substance without a prescription, and
• Report any contact with law enforcement to the probation office, among others.

For those convicted of sex offenses, the standard conditions require the convicted person to:

• Participate in a sex offense treatment and monitoring program at your own expense,
• Limit the use of a computer or access to the internet (if the defendant used computers or the internet to commit the offense), and
• Permit law enforcement to search his person or property if law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that the defendant violated the terms of supervised release or committed any other unlawful act.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(22), the court may provide that the defendant “satisfy such other conditions as the court may impose.” These conditions can include:

• Restrictions on Viewing Sexually Explicit Materials
• PPG/plethysmograph, polygraphs, and “visual response testing” (The Abel Test), all at your own expense

The complete “Overview of Probation and Supervised Release Conditions” (103 pages as of December 2022) can be found at:
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/overview-probation-supervised-release-conditions

There is an ongoing legal battle on internet bans for Registrants on paper. SCOTUS suggested in Packingham v NC that they would be open to a narrowly tailored internet or social media ban, and currently some jurisdictions have upheld internet/social media restrictions, but others have not. Do not be surprised if you are given an internet/social media ban while on paper. This may impact your ability to have a computer, smartphone, some gaming devices, and possible other “smart” devices like TVs.

In short, federal courts and POs abiding by USSG §5D1.3 have a list of mandatory conditions for release, some recommended “standard” conditions of release, the option to create “discretionary” rules as deemed necessary, and “special” conditions that are applied to certain cases (including sex offense convictions) and rules that can be applied on a case-by-case basis. The complete statute of USSG §5D1.3 can be found in Appendix 3 under “federal registration notes.”

ELECTRONIC MONITORING (EM), GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS (GPS), SATELLITE-BASED MONITORING (SBM), OR “ANKLE MONITORS”

Most states have some form of electronic monitoring program for persons On Paper. But, as noted in State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019), a dozen states had lifetime electronic monitoring programs:

• States that mandate lifetime EM without any individualized assessment of risk, even for individuals who have completed their sentences, and without meaningful judicial review over time: California (Cal. Penal Code §3004(b)); North Carolina (N.C.G.S. §§14-208.40A(c)-208.40B(c));
• States that provide for both individualized assessments to determine if lifetime EM is appropriate and the opportunity to petition a court to be removed from EM: Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15:560.3(A)(3); Wisconsin (Wis.Stat. § 301.48)
• States only apply lifetime EM to offenders who are subject to lifetime parole supervision or who otherwise would receive a sentence of life imprisonment: Florida (Fla. Stat. §948.012(4); Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3717(u)); Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. §217.735(4)); Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §§137.700, 144.103); Rhode Island (11 R.I. Gen. Laws §11-37-8.2.1);
• State provide for individualized assessments and sentencing discretion: Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. §11- 723(d)(3)(i));
• Lifetime EM for criminal sexual conduct 1st or 2nd degree, committed by an individual 17 years old or older against an individual less than 13 years of age: Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520n);
• South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540) lifetime EM applies to those convicted, nolo contendere, or adjudicated for criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, pursuant to Section 16-3-655(A)(1), or criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the third degree, pursuant to Section 16-3-655(C) with no opportunity to be removed from EM; all other offenses can petition for EM removal after 10 years. Missouri allows removal of EM devices for RPs over age 65 if proven to be a low risk.
• Georgia’s lifetime monitoring statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-14(e) (2016), was declared unconstitutional by that state’s Supreme Court. See Park v. State, 305 Ga. 348, 360–61, 825 S.E.2d 147, 158 (2019).

YOUR RIGHTS DURING “S.O.” TREATMENT

Some courts may order you to take treatment. You may be required to pay for expensive therapy or endure controversial testing practices like polygraphs or penile plethysmographs. Unfortunately, problems with a treatment provider can only be addressed either with the PO, the probation/parole board supervisor, or by petitioning the court for a change in treatment.

Polygraphs: A consensus of legal decisions regarding polygraph usage agree that despite the majority of studies on polygraph use suggesting the polygraphs are not effective tools in “sex offender” treatment, courts still allowed states to use the polygraph as a “treatment” tool. While you generally lack the ability to refuse to take the entire polygraph test, you SHOULD have the right to plead the 5th Amendment ONLY WHEN that particular question could lead to future criminal charges. There should be agreements written out in treatment programs and/or polygraphs that specifically state whether or not the results can be used against you in a court of law. For more on the polygraph controversy and legal history, see https://oncefallen.com/polygraph/

Despite the well-known fact the polygraph is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, some of you still believe they work and search online for techniques to “beat” the polygraph. Polygraphers look for evidence you’re employing these tricks as evidence you’re hiding something, so don’t waste your time and money on these so-called tricks to “sting” the polygraph. Most people who fail the poly do so because:

1. They are using some technique they learned online, like holding your breath or the thumbtack in the shoe,
2. You act in another way that may seem suspicious, such as pause on a question or try to over-explain something, or
3. You didn’t actually fail but are told you did in hopes you’ll confess to something.

PPGs: In U.S. v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court ruled the PPG is an intrusive procedure, both physically and psychologically, likening the procedure to a device from a George Orwell novel. The court utilized a standard of review involving tests that are “non-routine manipulative intrusions on bodily integrity” and that such tests “will be scrutinized” to determine whether there are less intrusive options. While the court concluded that the level of accuracy of penile plethysmography reported in the scientific literature is low and that the test’s true validity is academically controversial, this test could be a required condition for supervised release if there was evidence supporting the efficacy of this test over less intrusive procedures, such as the Abel and polygraph tests.

Abel Assessments: In U.S. v. Birdsbill, No. 03-30204 (9th Cir. May 4, 2004, unpublished), the Court also ruled the Abel test can be used for treatment, but is unreliable to be used as evidence to determine sexual deviancy for five reasons:

1. The AASI test is a psychological instrument to be used for treatment, not for diagnostic purposes, and it is not designed to assess the tendency of a person to abuse children sexually;
2. Dr. Abel did not use a control group and it is unclear how or whether the test ferrets out “fakers”;
3. The test has not been subject to adequate peer review because Dr. Abel has proprietary rights over the test and has not shared his formula with other scientists (and those who have tried to assess the test’s validity have come up with dubious and inconsistent results);
4. The potential error rate “varies from poor … to appalling,” which makes it an unreliable instrument; and
5. The relevant scientific community does not generally accept the AASI test as a diagnostic test for pedophilia.

However, U.S. v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008), the same Court rejected an argument the Abel test is intrusive, noting the test was far less intrusive than a PPG, does not implicate a particularly significant liberty interest, and while inadmissible in court, the test could be used as part of a treatment plan. The court concluded even unreliable tests like the Abel test has “value” in “rehabilitation” and “treatment” in determining attraction to children.
In short, arguments against the use of tests otherwise inadmissible as evidence in courts are usually allowed in treatment settings unless the condition is overly intrusive when less intrusive alternatives exist (as the polygraph and PPG are strapped to the human body), or if specific questions would trigger a violation of a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (i.e., a question about your sexual history leading to a new criminal case levied against you.) Only under these circumstances would you find relief through the courts.

SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT FEES

Perhaps the most difficult challenge you may face while on paper is paying the myriad of supervision and treatment fees. Jeffrey Nichols noted in his Sept. 2023 newsletter “The Legal Beagle”, “[I]n my first year (on Tennessee’s “Community Supervision for Life”) after being released from prison on August 2, 2021, I paid the below fees:” $95 per month for supervision and GPS monitoring; $850 one-time fee for a psychosexual evaluation; $175 twice a year – Maintenance Polygraphs $40 per week for sex offender treatment; and $150 annually for the sex offender annual registry fee. “In total I paid approximately $4,220.”

This sample fee scale is for Ravenhill, a behavioral therapy program in PA: Intake Interview $200.00; Individual/Family Session (45–50 mins) $100/Session; Therapy Group (1.5 hrs) $45/Group; Psychoeducational Group (1.5 hrs) $45/Group; No Call/No Show Charge $50; ABEL Testing $500; Other Psychosexual Assessments $500-$1000; Polygraph Examination $350; Client Documentation Requests $50-$200; Staffing Costs $100/hr/clinician (charges will begin when clinician(s) leave the office if the staffing is held remotely)

Failure to pay these exorbitant fees can lead to a violation and return to incarceration. Many have reported struggling to pay for basic needs like food and medicine while paying various supervision and treatment fees.

MOVING AS A REGISTRANT: INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND FEDERAL TRANSFERS

Attempting to move to a new state comes with extra challenges if you are on Paper.

• You do NOT need permission to move if not On Paper, but be sure you register at BOTH the location you are moving from AND the location you moving to. This is the same if moving across the hall or across the country. This is the most common reason people are charged with an FTR.
• If you are on STATE supervision/probation/parole, you MUST apply for an Interstate Compact in order to move to a new state.
• If you are under FEDERAL supervision you can apply to transfer at your Federal supervision office.
• Research the laws of the state you are moving to; you do not want to end up moving to a location that increases your registration period.

Moving to another state is a greater hassle than moving across town. Because cities, counties, and states have differing laws, the best way to find out what laws are applicable in your area is to contact the Sheriff’s office in the area where you plan on moving. After all, registration laws are subject to private interpretation of the law, and you do not want to sit in jail while arguing certain laws should not apply to you.

If the Registrant is going to be on probation/parole/supervised release for a conviction by a state court, an Interstate Compact will be necessary. An Interstate Compact is an agreement between two states to transfer supervision. If you were moving from Florida to California, for example, both states would have to agree to allow a transfer of supervision, but even while living in California, you would be subject to Florida supervision rules in addition to rules you may face in California. Either state can cancel the agreement; if that happens, you’d be sent back to Florida. The government provides a website specific to Interstate Compacts at http://www.interstatecompact.org/

The Florida DOC’s offender’s plan for transfer of supervision under the Interstate Compact, listed below as one example of minimum standard criteria similar to those of other states:

• Offender must have more than 90 calendar days or an indefinite period of supervision remaining
• Offender must have a valid plan of supervision
• Offender must be in substantial compliance with the terms of supervision
• Offender must be a resident of or have resident family in the receiving state who has indicated a willingness and ability to assist
• Resident – means a person who-
  1.  has continuously inhabited a state for at least 1 year prior to the commission of the offense for which the offender is under supervision; and
  2. intends that such state shall be the person’s principal place of residence; and
  3. has not, unless incarcerated or on active military deployment, remained in another state or states for a continuous period of six months or more with the intent to establish a new principal place of residence.
• Resident Family – means a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, adult child, adult sibling, spouse, legal guardian, or step-parent who-
  1. has resided in the receiving state for 180 calendar days or longer as of the date of the transfer request; and
  2. Indicates willingness and ability to assist the offender as specified in the plan of supervision.
• Offender can obtain employment there or has a means of support
• Though not a resident of the receiving state and not having family residing there, the receiving state consents to such a person being sent (discretionary transfer).

The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) Bench Book rule 3.3.4 notes that “In cases of sex offenders, there is a disallowance for travel permits. Accordingly, a sex offender must remain in the sending state until issuance of reporting instructions. A receiving state has five (5) business days to review an offender’s proposed residence and respond to a request for reporting instructions. A denial may result if similar sex offenders sentenced in the receiving state would not be permitted to live at the proposed residence. In addition to providing these exceptions, this rule also prohibits a sex offender from any travel outside of a sending state pending a request for transfer. The rules re quire a sending state to provide additional information at the time the transfer request is made, if available. This additional information requirement assists the receiving state in determining risk and appropriate supervision levels for sex offenders.”

I cannot find any specific info regarding acceptance rates if a person will be required to register upon release, but overall, over 2/3 of requests are granted. More than 72% of case rejections in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 ensued due to a failure to verify transfer plans and provide adequate justification for transfer requests. For FY 2022, 5580 interstate transfer requests were made by RPs and there are 9729 total number of RPs currently in the Interstate Compact portal. This means, of course, RPs have received interstate compacts but there is no way to know how many have been rejected due to registry status.

Please note that Interstate Compacts only apply to those on state probation/parole/supervised release; federal inmates can simply request a transfer with Federal supervision office. The following information is from an article discussing federal transfers (Source: “Road to Reentry: How can I move if I am on federal supervision (like federal probation, federal supervised release, or federal parole)?” Root and Rebound. 2018. Accessed 13 May 2020 at https://roadmap.rootandrebound.org/parole-probation/federal-community-supervision-federal-probation/transfer-locations-on-federal-probation-federal-su/how-can-i-move-if-i-am-on-federal-supervision-like/):

“QUESTION – How can I move if I am on federal supervision (like federal probation, federal supervised release, or federal parole)?

If you are currently incarcerated and preparing for your release: You may be able to request a transfer to another district. The request must be submitted to your Case Manager with the Bureau of Prisons since you will not yet have a Probation Officer.

If you were formerly incarcerated and already released and living in the community: The process depends on whether you are asking to move to a new residence within the same district OR to a new residence in a different district. Because federal supervision is based on districts, it is not a question of whether you are asking to move across state lines but, instead, whether you are asking to move into a different district. The Interstate Compact on Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) does not apply to federal supervision. In a nutshell, it’s easier to move within the same district than to move to a new one. The steps below outline both possibilities:

Possibility #1: If you are moving to a new residence within your current district, it’s suggested that you follow these steps:

Improving your chances of having a transfer request approved: Your request is much more likely to be approved if you have a good track record – clean drug tests, always going to your meetings with your Probation Officer, staying out of trouble with law enforcement.

Notify your Probation Officer that you want to change your address, and submit that address and the contact information for anyone else living at that address. You must get permission from your Probation Officer to move within your current U.S. Probation District—even if it is across the street. Your Probation Officer will investigate the new address—so long as it is located in the same U.S. Probation District. As part of that investigation, your Probation Officer will:

• Make sure the new address actually exists;
• Make sure that other people living at the new address are willing and able to have you in their home;
• Run a background check on everyone living at the new address (PLEASE NOTE: Since it is a standard condition for all people on federal supervision to avoid associating with anyone else who has a felony conviction, your request to move/transfer to live with someone who has been convicted of a felony will likely be denied);
• Make sure that everyone at the new address knows about and agrees to the “Search Condition” of your supervision.
• Make sure there are no weapons at the new address.

Possibility #2: If you are moving to a new residence outside of your current U.S. Probation District, it’s suggested that you follow these steps:

Before you ask for a formal transfer to a new district—which can be a longer, more challenging process—ask your probation officer for what is called “courtesy supervision” by another district.

This technically keeps your case in the original district, but allows you to live in and travel to the district of your choice. Your probation officer AND the probation officer of the other district have to agree. After doing this, it is much easier to transfer to the courtesy district than to just transfer from one district to another without “courtesy supervision” being set up first.

If ‘courtesy supervision’ is denied or doesn’t work out, you can still request a formal transfer. Tell your Probation Officer that you want to change your address, and submit that address and the contact information for anyone else living at that address. You must get permission from your Probation Officer to move to a new address in a different U.S. Probation District.

Your Probation Officer must submit a ‘Transfer Investigation’ to the new district. The Transfer Investigation generally takes 30 days or longer, since both your current district and the new district must investigate your new proposed address and approve the transfer. As part of the “Transfer Investigation,” a Probation Officer in the receiving District will:

• Make sure the new address actually exists;
• Make sure that other people living at the new address are willing and able to have you in their home;
• Run a background check on everyone living at the new address (PLEASE NOTE: Since it is a standard condition for all people on federal supervision to avoid associating with anyone else who has a felony conviction, your request to move/transfer to live with someone who has been convicted of a felony will likely be denied);
• Make sure that everyone at the new address knows about and agrees to the ‘Search Condition’ of your supervision.
• Make sure there are no weapons at the new address.

The receiving District must approve or deny the transfer after conducting the ‘Transfer Investigation.’

The receiving district can deny your request to transfer/move for any reason. The sending district where you are currently supervised must wait for a response before it can act to transfer your supervision.”

CHALLENGING SUPERVISION CONDITIONS

If you feel your PO is violating the law or harassing you or you feel a certain rule is going too far, you could choose to file a complaint with the supervisor at the probation/parole office, with the State Police (on the state level) or the FBI (on the federal level). In all honesty, that likely won’t go far. Thus, you may have to go to court to get relief from a bad PO or to challenge a condition of your release.

In challenging conditions of supervision, the short answer is that there IS a chance a bad rule can be challenged successfully, and it is even possible to get terminated from lifetime supervision. The report below is NOT detailed but is merely a brief discussion about federal supervision appeals and termination. The information listed below covers challenging federal supervision conditions but the same arguments could be applied to the state courts.

I have only shared the most important segments in this book, with the citations omitted to save space. The complete report (which contains full legal citations) can be found at:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2023_Primer_Supervised_Release.pdf

Early Termination of Supervised Release

A court may terminate supervised release “at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release . . . if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice,” after considering the specified factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).

Courts disagree on whether they must explain such consideration on the record in deciding whether to grant a defendant’s motion for early termination of supervised release under section 3583(e)(1).

The guidelines “encourage[] [courts] to exercise this authority in appropriate cases.” In particular, the authority to terminate a term early is one factor a court may consider in determining the length of a term of supervised release. For example, a court may impose a longer term on a defendant with a drug, alcohol, or other addiction, but may then terminate the supervised release term early when a defendant “successfully completes a treatment program, thereby reducing the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.” See USSG §5D1.2, comment. (n.5)

The Sixth Circuit has held that a court may terminate supervised release early even if the statute of conviction originally required a particular term of supervised release.

Appellate Issues

As with a sentence of imprisonment, a term of supervised release may be reviewed on appeal for procedural and substantive reasonableness in light of the court’s stated reasons. The standard of review will vary depending on the nature of the challenge and the procedural posture of the appeal.

Appeal of Challenged Conditions

Claims that a district court imposed an invalid condition of supervised release raised for the first time on appeal are ordinarily reviewed only for “plain error.” Fully preserved challenges to conditions of supervised release are ordinarily reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, although the issue of “whether a supervised release condition illegally exceeds the [district court’s statutory authority] or violates the Constitution is reviewed de novo.” Although circuit courts often uphold the conditions imposed, they also have disagreed about the propriety of certain conditions.

Appellate courts have addressed discretionary conditions imposed by sentencing courts, including the conditions listed in the guidelines as well as conditions created by the courts. Circuit courts have criticized and struck down discretionary conditions imposed because they were vague and overbroad, not reasonably related to relevant statutory sentencing factors, or constituted a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. In 2016, the Commission revised or clarified several of the conditions in §5D1.3 that had been challenged on appeal as vaguely worded, constitutionally suspect, or, in the case of certain standard conditions, improperly imposed on particular offenders.

Appeal of Revocation Conditions

District courts must adequately explain a defendant’s sentence so that reviewing courts can evaluate the validity of the underlying rationale supporting the sentence. Just as with a sentence of imprisonment imposed at a defendant’s original sentencing hearing, a post-revocation sentence of imprisonment cannot be based solely on the defendant’s need for rehabilitation.

Whether a district court had jurisdiction to revoke supervised release is reviewed de novo.135 The district court’s factual findings that a defendant violated the conditions of release are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

If the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a valid condition of supervised release, the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion. With respect to appellate review of the type and length of the sentence imposed upon revocation, “sentences for violations of supervised release are reviewed under the same standard as for sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.” Reasonableness is reviewed “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Where a defendant does not object at sentencing to a district court’s failure to explain its reasoning, the procedural challenge is subject to plain error.

Ripeness and Mootness Issues on Appeal

On a regular basis, appellate courts must decide whether a defendant’s challenge to a condition of supervised release is ripe when raised on direct appeal of the original sentence, or only becomes ripe on appeal of a judgment revoking supervised release or as part of a modification proceeding. The courts of appeal have issued inconsistent decisions on this point and the ripeness of any particular challenge may turn on the nature of the condition being challenged. Finally, courts have held that a defendant’s appeal of a district court’s revocation of supervised release is moot if the defendant has been unconditionally released from all types of custody (including any recommenced term of supervised release) at the time the appellate court hears the appeal.