Parole violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the urine sample established defendant’s parole violation?    

Defendant was on supervised release parole.  He was charged with a parole violation.  Defendant was found guilty and his supervised release was revoked.  He appealed.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation on the grounds that a drug test administrator had provided testimony about a urine sample and that constituted ample evidence to find that defendant violated his supervised release.  Affirmed.

United States v. Christinson, 21-1535, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.