MEMORANDUM & ORDERTERMINATION OF PROBATIONI. Introduction This case concerns supervised release and substance use, issues that were discussed in United States v. Trotter. See generally United States v. Trotter, 321 F. Supp. 3d 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2018). In Trotter, the trial court dealt with the issue of whether and how to punish supervisees for their marijuana addictions. The conclusion was that it is appropriate to “avoid violations of supervised release and punishment by incarceration merely for habitual marijuana use.” Id. at 339. The policy was designed to aid reintegration into the community. Id.The instant memorandum considers another important issue in supervised release: what to do with a supervisee who habitually uses alcohol in socially acceptable amounts and conditions violating the terms of his supervised release. The marijuana holding in Trotter is followed and extended to habitual use of alcohol socially: it avoids violations of supervised release and punishment by incarceration merely for alcohol use.The court will not find violations of supervised release and punishment by incarceration merely for habitual, socially acceptable use of alcohol except in unusual cases. When a supervisee appears to be reintegrated into society but uses alcohol socially, the supervisee shows no interest in stopping alcohol use, and alcohol played no part in the underlying offense, the court will consider terminating supervision, releasing defendant as unimproved with respect to this habit.The purpose of federal supervised release is to assist individuals convicted of crimes rehabilitate by provision of monitoring and other services. The United States Probation Department (“Probation”) monitors individuals on supervised release and can help a supervisee with his or her reintegration into lawful society by providing drug and alcohol treatment, mental health counseling, vocational training, and many other services to help reduce risks of recidivism.Following a term of incarceration, successful reintegration into the community is paramount. Reconnections with family and employment are vital. See generally Mark T. Berg & Beth M. Huebner, Reentry and the Ties That Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism, 28 Just. Q. 382 (2011). “Every time a connection is broken with the world outside of prison, by unnecessary incarceration following violations of supervised release, it probably becomes more difficult to reconnect.” Trotter, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 340.Violations of supervised release may result in — and in certain instances must result in — incarceration. This situation traps some defendants in a cycle of supervised release and prison. Like many Americans, Tyrone Thomas drinks alcohol socially, mainly in the form of beer. He has done so for more than a decade. Since leaving prison where he was incarcerated on a federal drug distribution charge, his only violations of supervised release conditions have been for relatively minor alcohol use.Thomas is employed and has a stable home life. But his alcohol use, Probation believes, should mean incarceration for violation of one of the conditions of his supervised release. Supervised release, thus, has become a hindrance to this defendant’s full reintegration into society.Using Probation’s limited resources on a supervisee whose only violation is that he imbibes and enjoys alcohol on occasion — a legal and widely used substance — is a waste of resources. Cf. U.S. Courts, Probation Offices Look to Technology to Offset Budget, Staffing Reductions (Apr. 18, 2012) (discussing innovative measures taken by Probation to offset budgetary concerns). “Probation…should be focused on assisting those defendants with the potential for success, not on those doomed to fail” because they use a substance widely approved and used in society at all socioeconomic levels. Trotter, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 340.II. FactsA. BackgroundThe defendant, now 38-years-old, was born in Queens. Presentence Investigative Report 62 (“PSR”). He was raised in a financially stable, middle-income household and describes a generally happy, normal childhood. Id. Thomas’s father, who died from cancer in the early 2000s, worked for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. PSR 59. His mother is a supervising chemist at New York Hospital in Queens. Id. The defendant’s only brother drowned in 1983, at age 14 when the defendant was only three-years-old. PSR 60. And his parents divorced around that time. See PSR
59-60.The defendant has three children: a three-year-old son, an eight-year-old daughter, and a 16-year-old daughter. PSR
