C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 2—PAROLE, RELEASE, SUPERVISION AND RECOMMITMENT OF PRISONERS, YOUTH OFFENDERS, AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS › Subpart A—United States Code Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.37

Disclosure of information concerning parolees; Statement of policy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Information concerning a parolee under the Commission's supervision may be disclosed to a person or persons who may be exposed to harm through contact with that particular parolee if such disclosure is deemed to be reasonably necessary to give notice that such danger exists.

(b) Information concerning parolees may be released by a Chief U.S. Probation Officer to a law enforcement agency (1) as deemed appropriate for the protection of the public or the enforcement of the conditions of parole or (2) pursuant to a request under 18 U.S.C. 4203(e).

(c) Information deemed to be “public sector” information may be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the file subject. Public sector information encompasses the following:

(1) Name;

(2) Register number;

(3) Offense of conviction;

(4) Past and current places of incarceration;

(5) Age;

(6) Sentence data on the Bureau of Prisons sentence computation record (BP-5);

(7) Date(s) of parole and parole revocation hearings; and

(8) The decision(s) rendered by the Commission following a parole or parole revocation proceeding, including the dates of continuances and parole dates. An inmate's designated future place of incarceration is not public information.

[47 FR 13521, Mar. 31, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 33408, Sept. 3, 1987; 63 FR 25772, May 11, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1969–2006 · leading case: Don B. Cook v. United States Attorney Gen., 488 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Don B. Cook v. United States Attorney Gen., 488 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “Under 28 CFR 2.37(c) 10 the Board in its discretion may provide a *672 dispositional interview at the federal prison for a parolee who is serving an intervening sentence with an outstanding unexecuted violators warrant lodged as a detainer, at which time the continued propriety…”
United States v. Alphonso Polito, 583 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1978). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.37 . 8 . It is for this reason that we do not follow the analytical path suggested by the government on this appeal, i.”
Frederick K. Moore v. P. G. Smith, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, 412 F.2d 720 (7th Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (c). In view of the pleas of guilty which petitioner entered to the 1965 charges, he is not in the position of the petitioners in Hyser v.”
Parsons v. Pond, 126 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 3× “Here, in contrast, the defendants argue that, while notification is not automatic, the defendant probation officers were authorized, by 28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (a) and by Parsons’s consent in signing the supervised release conditions form, to make third-party notifications and…”
George Chaney v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Dir., United States Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, 427 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “1969); 28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (b). Appellant has not challenged the basis of probable cause for issuance of the warrant.”
Fuller-Avent v. United States Prob. Off., 226 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “” Guide To Judiciary Policies and Procedures, vol. X (U.S.”
Reese v. United States Bd. of Parole, 530 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1976). “” This regulation is substantially similar to the former one which was in effect for the appellants in this case (formerly 28 C.F.R. § 2.37 , revised February 1975).”
James Delbert Smith v. United States, 409 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1969). “28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (c). See Williams v. Preston, 128 U.”
John Wesley Adams v. United States, 432 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1970). “This disposition is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to an administrative remedy under 28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (e) (1970). The record does not inform us whether the provisions of that regulation have been carried out.”
Disclosure of Parolees' Names to Local Police (OLC 1982). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.37 (b) (1981).2 Because of concerns that unnecessary release of such information could be counterproductive to reintegration of a parolee into the community, the Parole Commission stated that it would exercise that authority only “ where clearly warranted by…”
Furrow v. United States Bd. of Parole, 418 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1976). “This regulation is substantially identical to the predecessor regulation, 28 CFR § 2.37 (1974), which was adopted October 31, 1967.”
John Wesley Adams v. United States, 432 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1970). “1 1 This disposition is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to an administrative remedy under 28 C.F.R. 2.37(c) (1970). The record does not inform us whether the provisions of that regulation have been carried out.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.37(c) — 2 cases
Don B. Cook v. United States Attorney Gen., 488 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1974). “Under 28 CFR 2.37(c) 10 the Board in its discretion may provide a *672 dispositional interview at the federal prison for a parolee who is serving an intervening sentence with an outstanding unexecuted violators warrant lodged as a detainer, at which time the continued propriety…”
John Wesley Adams v. United States, 432 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1970). “1 1 This disposition is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to an administrative remedy under 28 C.F.R. 2.37(c) (1970). The record does not inform us whether the provisions of that regulation have been carried out.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.37(e) — 1 case
Don B. Cook v. United States Attorney Gen., 488 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1974). “Under 28 CFR 2.37(c) 10 the Board in its discretion may provide a *672 dispositional interview at the federal prison for a parolee who is serving an intervening sentence with an outstanding unexecuted violators warrant lodged as a detainer, at which time the continued propriety…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.