United States v. Demers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3029
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Demers was observed viewing child pornography on a public library computer; he discarded a printed set of 12 images before police arrived.
- He pled guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), (b)(1).
- Demers was a registered sex offender with a history including sexual abuse and domestic violence convictions and prior arrests for possession of child pornography.
- The district court sentenced Demers to 150 months' imprisonment and lifetime supervised release with 13 standard and 7 special conditions.
- On appeal, Demers challenges four special conditions of supervised release; the court applies plain-error review because no objection was raised at sentencing.
- The panel affirms the sentence, upholding the challenged special conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Special Condition 5 reasonable under §3553(a) and §3583(d)? | Demers argues the internet ban is not reasonably related to factors and overly deprives liberty. | Demers is the defendant; the government argues Internet restrictions are related to the offense and public safety. | Yes; internet ban is reasonably related and permissible. |
| Is Special Condition 7 (no pornographic materials) properly tailored or overbroad? | Demers contends lack of sufficiently individualized basis and potential First Amendment overbreadth. | Government relies on Demers's history; restriction is narrowly tailored to deter future offenses. | Condition upheld as appropriately tailored given history; not overbroad under circuit precedent. |
| Is Special Condition 2 (location tracking) valid as a no-greater-than-necessary liberty deprivation? | Demers argues it imposes greater-than-necessary liberty restrictions. | Condition is standard and supported by prior cases for tracking whereabouts. | Held valid; not plain error. |
| Is Special Condition 3 (no unsupervised contact with minors) invalid without a pre-approval exception? | Demers argues absence of pre-approval exception may be improper. | Government points to individualized considerations and Demers's history as justification. | No plain error; condition sustained without requiring a pre-approval exception under current law. |
| Was any asserted error plain under the applicable standard given lack of objection at sentencing? | Demers asserts plain-error review should relax standard for sentencing errors. | Government argues standard stays strict; no error shown to be plain. | No plain error shown; affirmance of sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.2009) (limits on computer/internet use relate to offense characteristics)
- United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505 (8th Cir.2005) (needs § 3583(d) compliance and balancing under 3553(a))
- United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir.2010) (internet restrictions justified by offense context)
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir.2005) (extent of restrictions and minor-protection considerations)
- United States v. Alvarez, 478 F.3d 864 (8th Cir.2007) (First Amendment considerations in monitored material restrictions)
- United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660 (8th Cir.2007) (upholding broad internet-use restriction when tied to offense context)
- United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692 (8th Cir.2003) (plan error review and pornography possession restriction)
- United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.2006) (plain-error review for supervised-release conditions; requires concrete showing)
- United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir.2006) (pre-approval exception in contact-with-minors context; distinction noted)
- United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 (8th Cir.2010) (overbreadth concerns when restrictions engulf benign materials)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir.2010) (overbreadth limits on material restrictions; nudity cases)