946 F.3d 443
8th Cir.2019Background
- July 2017: Library staff discovered printed images (library card traced to David Buie) depicting what staff believed were a boy engaging in sexual acts with his mother; Buie’s probation officer recovered similar full-color drawings from his home after Buie consented to a search.
- Buie was charged with one count of possession of child obscenity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A(b)(1) and (d).
- Section 1466A(b)(1) criminalizes knowing possession of a visual depiction that (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and (B) is obscene.
- At trial Buie moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the statute is facially overbroad (First Amendment) and unconstitutionally vague (Fifth Amendment); the district court denied the motions.
- A jury convicted Buie; the district court sentenced him to 121 months’ imprisonment and life supervised release. Buie appealed on overbreadth and vagueness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment — Overbreadth | Buie: §1466A(b)(1) criminalizes protected speech (non-obscene sexual depictions, historic art) | Gov: statute requires material be "obscene," thus targets only unprotected speech under Miller | Statute not overbroad; requires obscenity so does not reach protected speech |
| Fifth Amendment — Vagueness (fair notice) | Buie: Miller test is too indeterminate; people lack notice until a jury decides obscenity | Gov: Miller provides concrete, settled three-part test giving fair notice | Miller is constitutionally adequate; statute not unconstitutionally vague for lack of notice |
| Fifth Amendment — Vagueness (arbitrary enforcement) | Buie: community-standards element allows arbitrary, geographically inconsistent enforcement | Gov: Supreme Court permits community standards; diversity of outcomes does not violate due process | Permissible variability; statute does not permit unconstitutional arbitrary enforcement |
| Chilling effect on art/literature | Buie: conviction risks chilling historic or literary depictions that include incestuous or sexual content | Gov: challenged examples not in the record; Miller’s serious-value prong protects such works | Court rejects chilling claim; Miller’s value prong guards works with serious literary/artistic value |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (obscene material lies outside First Amendment protection)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (establishes three-part obscenity test)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (federal obscenity statutes construed to Miller)
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (Miller test not unconstitutionally vague)
- Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (rejects argument that Miller is inherently vague)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (overbreadth fails when statute does not reach protected speech)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (distinguishes protected speech from obscenity)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (recognizes community diversity in obscenity determinations)
- Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (different jury outcomes do not automatically abridge rights)