18 U.S.C. § 3608
Drug testing of Federal offenders on post-conviction release
The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, establish a program of drug testing of Federal offenders on post-conviction release. The program shall include such standards and guidelines as the Director may determine necessary to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the drug testing programs. In each judicial district the chief probation officer shall arrange for the drug testing of defendants on post-conviction release pursuant to a conviction for a felony or other offense described in section 3563(a)(4).1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1998–2012 · leading case: United States v. Melendez-Santana
United States v. Melendez-Santana (2003)
“See Section 20414 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3608 ). 12 Congress clearly understood the role of probation officers in providing for and administering drug programs, yet Congress included no reference to probation officers in the drug testing language of 18 U.”
United States v. Fernando Diaz-Diaz, United States of America v. Fernando Diaz-Diaz (1998)
“For reasons set forth later in this opinion, the district court sentenced Diaz-Diaz to 10 months’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, $50 special assessment, and mandatory drug testing as set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3608 . Although Diaz-Diaz has completed his sentence and…”
United States v. Bermudez-Plaza (2000)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3608 (2), (8)(B). She was acting as an agent of the Judiciary itself, not as a practicing attorney.”
United States v. Frank Klimek (2005)
“Defendant’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3608 is similarly misplaced. That provision states, in relevant part: The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall,…”
United States v. Ruian Du, United States of America v. Rachel Chavez (2007)
“Rather, the officer, consistent with statutory duties outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3608 , is required to verify employment information about duties, responsibilities, compensation, and other employment information relevant to supervision.”
United States v. Wells (2012)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3608 (2). Defense counsel even recognized the relevance of Defendant’s conduct when he disclosed to the court the disposition of the disorderly conduct charge.”
United States v. Fernando Diaz-Diaz (1998)
“For reasons set forth later in this opinion, the district court sentenced Diaz- Diaz to 10 months’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, $50 special assessment, and mandatory drug testing as set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3608 . Although Diaz-Diaz has completed his sentence and…”
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.