United States v. Brune
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17964
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bruñe was federally convicted in 2001 of possession of child pornography under § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- He served prison time and then was released on supervised release, later violating conditions in 2004, resulting in additional incarceration.
- Because of his federal conviction, Bruñe was required to register as a sex offender for life under Kansas law (KORA) and federal SORNA requirements.
- Between August 2009 and May 2011 Bruñe failed to register, violating SORNA’s annual registration duties.
- During an arrest search, agents found child pornography on Bruñe’s computer, confirming access to such material.
- Bruñe was indicted for failing to register under SORNA and for unlawfully accessing with intent to view child pornography under § 2252A(a)(5)(B); he pleaded guilty, preserving appellate challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause | Bruñe argues SORNA exceeds Congress power. | Bruñe argues Kebodeaux narrows Congress authority; SORNA lacks proper tether. | SORNA constitutional as applied. |
| Whether § 2252A(a)(5)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad | Brune contends broad terms sweep protected speech. | Government argues statute targets actual child pornography with limiting construction. | Statute not facially overbroad. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (U.S. 2013) (upholds SORNA under Necessary and Proper Clause as applied)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2010) (two-part test for constitutionality under Necessary and Proper Clause)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2010) (overbreadth caution in First Amendment analysis; context matters)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (permits regulation of child pornography; discusses overbreadth limits)
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2003) (overbreadth requires substantial protected speech burden)
- Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (overbreadth analysis; substantial chilling effects must be shown)