• Authority to impose additional supervision conditions appeal


    McNeill v. State

    Nevada challenge to lifetime supervision of offenders. Summary: Appellant was a convicted sex offender on lifetime supervision. When Appellant had been on lifetime supervision for five years, the State Board of Parole Commissioners imposed additional conditions that were not enumerated in Nev. Rev. Stat. 213.1243. The State later filed a complaint charging Appellant with violation of conditions of lifetime supervision and prohibited acts by a sex offender. The jury found Appellant guilty of violating the conditions of his lifetime supervision. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 213.1243 does not delegate authority to the Board to impose additional supervision conditions not enumerated in the statute, and therefore, he did not violate the statute even if he violated the additional conditions imposed by the Board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the plain language of section 213.1243 does not grant the Board authority to impose additional conditions, and this omission was intentional; and (2) because the Board-imposed conditions were unlawful and any Board violations cannot be separated from any section 213.1243 violations, the case must be remanded for a new trial.


    This case was remanded for trial on one count. The one count is covered under the Constitution… might I add the Constitution of Nevada—not the Constitution of any other State or of the United States (check yours!). What the jury and judge are saying is that the Law for NV has certain things that a probation officer can and can not do to enforce the law, of probation. The things that are not in that statute are the things that are “unConstitutional” and the defendant will not be charged with any of the counts, on the grounds that the counts are not covered by the statute—which is part of the NV constitutional laws written by Legislature—since they are enumerated by the Board for probation restrictions… not lifetime supervised release conditions.

    Some states will re-word this legislation, quickly, once this gets out. Others will allow the courts to decide—if a SO takes it to court, which most will not. It is the non-enumeration of the law that keeps the defendant out of jail. He is in violation of the supervision but the violations are enumerated in the code that covers probation in general, not covered by lifetime supervision. So you can break certain “non-covered/nonenumerated” laws; but this does not make lifetime supervised release unConstitutional on the surface.

    Categories: Constitutionality, Court Findings

    Tags: , ,

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *