Smith v. Anderson, No. 16-2333 (7th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Smith, a registered sex offender, was convicted of driving with a revoked license and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment followed by mandatory supervised release. To begin his supervised release, Smith needed the Illinois Department of Corrections to approve a host site. On his release date, Smith submitted two host sites. The Department had not investigated the proposed sites. A parole supervisor ordered Smith’s parole officer, Anderson, to issue a parole violation report rather than release Smith. Anderson’s report contained incorrect statements, claiming that electronic monitoring was a condition of Smith’s supervised release and that the Department had attempted to place Smith at a host site that would allow him to comply with the electronic monitoring requirement. Smith spent another six months in custody before being released on good‐time credit. He sued Anderson under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Anderson. For relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity bars Smith’s claim. No court has held that the Fourth Amendment compels the release of sex offenders who lack lawful and approved living arrangements; lacking these arrangements, their continued detention does not violate clearly established rights.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16 2333 CHARLES SMITH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. PAUL ANDERSON, Defendant Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 cv 2330 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 — DECIDED OCTOBER 31, 2017 ____________________ Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and KANNE, Circuit Judges. KANNE, Circuit Judge. Charles Smith, a registered sex of fender, was convicted of driving with a revoked license and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment followed by one year’s mandatory supervised release. To begin his supervised re leased—often called parole—Smith needed the Illinois De partment of Corrections to approve a host site. On his release date Smith submitted two host sites. At that time, the Depart ment had not investigated or approved the proposed sites. A 2 No. 16 2333 parole supervisor therefore ordered Smith’s parole officer, Paul Anderson, to issue a parole violation report rather than release Smith. Anderson’s parole violation report contained incorrect statements. Principally, the report claimed that electronic monitoring was a condition of Smith’s supervised release. It also noted that the Department had attempted to place Smith at a host site that would allow him to comply with the elec tronic monitoring requirement. Neither statement was accu rate. Smith spent another six months in custody before the De partment released him on good time credit. He sued his pa role officer, Paul Anderson, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an al leged violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted Anderson’s motion for summary judgment.1 We af firm. I. ANALYSIS For relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Werner v. Wall, 836 F.3d 751, 758–9 (7th Cir. 2016). To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a clearly establish statutory or constitutional right. Id. Here, Smith cannot demonstrate that Anderson violated a clearly established constitutional right, even when we view the facts in the light most favorable to him. 1 Smith also alleged state law claims. The district court found that Smith failed to meaningfully assert any of them. Smith did not challenge that ruling in his opening brief, and thus, forfeited those claims. See, e.g., Anderson v. Litscher, 281 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2002). No. 16 2333 3 Smith brings his 1983 claim for an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. He argues that Anderson’s parole viola tion report led the Department to hold him beyond his release date. Because Anderson lacked reasonable suspicion for the facts that formed the basis of his report, Smith insists that the report violated the Fourth Amendment. See Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that the seizure of a pa rolee without reasonable suspicion could violate the Fourth Amendment). Qualified immunity bars Smith’s claim. No court has held that the Fourth Amendment compels the release of sex of fenders who lack lawful and approved living arrangements. Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 2017). Thus, when sex offenders lack these arrangements, their continued deten tion does not violate clearly established rights. In such cir cumstances, the officers responsible for their detention are en titled to qualified immunity. Id. That is the situation here. Indeed, Illinois law requires the Department to ensure that inmates have proper and approved residences before releasing them on parole. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 1610.110. It also authorizes the Department to hold inmates until it has approved their living arrangements. Id. As of his release date, Department had not approved Smith’s host site. Thus, Smith’s continued detention did not violate a clearly established right. Smith insists that the Department had approved his host site. He claims that in the absence of additional conditions im posed by statute or the parole board, an inmate satisfies sec tion 1610.110’s approval requirement by submitting any site that allows law enforcement to monitor the parolee. Thus, Smith contends, the Department automatically approved his 4 No. 16 2333 site when he submitted his mother’s residence and she agreed to host him. Of course, that cannot be the case. The Department’s ap proval—not the inmate’s submission—entitles an inmate to release under the Code. And despite Smith’s contentions, the Department’s approval is neither mechanical nor automatic. In fact, the Department later denied both of Smith’s sites. II. CONCLUSION On Smith’s release date, the Department had not approved his host site. Instead of releasing Smith, Anderson submitted a parole violation report. The report contained errors. But be cause no court has held that the Fourth Amendment requires prisons to release sex offenders who lack lawful and ap proved places to live, Anderson’s incorrect statements—even if baseless—cannot form the basis of liability under section 1983. AFFIRMED.

Primary Holding

No court has held that the Fourth Amendment compels the release of sex offenders who lack lawful and approved living arrangements; lacking these arrangements, their continued detention does not violate clearly established rights.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.