United States v. Harris: Permissible Disclosure of PSR and Medical Records to Treatment Providers under Supervised Release

Introduction

United States v. Harris, 24-1099-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), arises out of a challenge to special conditions of supervised release imposed after a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property (18 U.S.C. § 371). The defendant, Aimee Harris, admitted stealing personal belongings—including a private journal—from an immediate family member of a former government official, transporting the items across state lines, and agreeing to sell them. At sentencing, the district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence (one month in custody and three years’ supervised release) and mandated participation in outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment. Critically, the court authorized Harris’s probation officer to disclose parts of her presentence investigation report (PSR) and prior treatment records to her future treatment providers without her express consent.

On appeal, Harris argued that (1) authorizing the probation officer to share her PSR and medical information violated her privacy interests and physician-patient privilege, and (2) delegating to the probation officer the decision which records to release amounted to an impermissible delegation of judicial authority. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a summary order, affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s below-Guidelines sentence and special conditions of supervised release.
• It held that authorizing disclosure of the PSR and prior mental-health/substance-abuse records to treatment providers was “reasonably related” to Harris’s need for “medical care or other correctional treatment,” as required by U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
• The court found no plain error in authorizing the probation officer to decide which portions of the records to disclose, distinguishing that delegation from impermissible delegations that affect “the very existence of liberty.”
• The court emphasized Harris’s diminished privacy expectations during supervised release and noted that mental-health and substance-abuse treatment providers remain bound by confidentiality obligations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2018) – District courts must make an individualized assessment and state reasons for special conditions, but “self-evident” reasoning in the record suffices.
• United States v. Kunz, 68 F.4th 748 (2d Cir. 2023) – Review of special supervised release conditions is for abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Dupes, 513 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2008) – Upheld a therapeutic-records waiver allowing probation-office access to mental health treatment files, finding it advanced treatment and public safety.
• United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) – Distinguished permissible delegation of “minor details” (e.g., choosing a provider) from impermissible delegation that makes liberty contingent on probation-officer discretion.
• United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) – Prohibits conditions requiring mental-health interventions solely at the probation officer’s direction, because they impermissibly delegate judicial power.
• U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5D1.3(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(d) – Authorize special conditions that are reasonably related to sentencing purposes, including medical care and public safety.

Legal Reasoning

1. Reasonable Relationship to Sentencing Factors
The court found that sharing the PSR and medical records with treatment providers was reasonably related to:

• the defendant’s need for “medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner,” and
• the need to protect the public by reducing recidivism risk.

These considerations track the four § 3553(a) factors and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b)(1). The Samson–Betts line of cases allows conditions related to rehabilitation and public safety so long as they serve one or more of the enumerated factors.

2. Self-Evident Justification
Although the district court did not expressly articulate its reasoning on the record, the panel held—pursuant to Betts—that the justification was “self-evident.” It is common sense that mental-health and substance-abuse professionals need relevant background information (e.g., prior diagnoses, history of substance use, criminal conduct) to design and deliver effective treatment.

3. Diminished Privacy Interests
Courts recognize that supervised-release conditions entail a diminished expectation of privacy. Harris’s probation-officer–authorized disclosures were narrowly tailored: they applied only to providers who already must maintain confidentiality under professional ethics and federal regulations.

4. Delegation to the Probation Officer
The court distinguished between:

• impermissible delegations that leave the core decision—“whether” a condition applies—to the probation officer, and
• permissible delegations of “minor details,” such as selecting which portions of records to forward or choosing a specific program provider or schedule.

Here, the district court decidedly imposed the requirement of treatment and only allowed the probation officer to execute the limited task of record selection, a routine administrative function that does not impinge on judicial authority over sentencing.

Impact

This decision clarifies the Second Circuit’s approach to special supervised-release conditions involving sensitive personal records. Future sentencing courts may confidently:

• authorize disclosure of PSRs and treatment records to qualified providers when such disclosures enhance rehabilitative and public-safety objectives;
• rely on “self-evident” justifications in the record without extended oral findings;
• delegate to probation officers routine administrative tasks—provider selection, record redaction, scheduling—while reserving core sentencing choices to the bench.

Practitioners should, however, ensure that any broader delegations do not risk converting a judicial mandate into probationary discretion over whether a condition applies at all.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Special Conditions of Supervised Release: Requirements imposed in addition to basic terms (like reporting) that address a defendant’s rehabilitation or the public’s protection.
• Presentence Investigation Report (PSR): A confidential document prepared by U.S. Probation that summarizes a defendant’s background and offense conduct to inform sentencing.
• Plain Error Review: An appellate standard applied when an issue was not objected to below, requiring (1) an obvious error, (2) that affects substantial rights, and (3) undermines fairness or public reputation of the proceedings.
• Delegation vs. Discretion:
  • Impermissible Delegation: Letting the probation officer decide whether a condition applies at all.
  • Permissible Delegation: Letting the probation officer manage logistical details (e.g., which pages of the PSR to share).

Conclusion

United States v. Harris reaffirms that district courts retain broad discretion to impose special supervised-release conditions tailored to rehabilitation and public safety. Courts in the Second Circuit may permit probation officers to disclose selected portions of a defendant’s PSR and medical records to treatment providers—so long as the mandate to treat is judicially imposed and the probation officer’s role is limited to administrative execution. This ruling balances the defendant’s diminished privacy expectations against the practical need for clinicians to access relevant history and underscores the boundary between a judge’s core sentencing authority and permissible administrative delegations.