United States v. Deppish, 554 F. App'x 753

Deppish appeals a district court order re-imposing curfew and electronic monitoring as pretrial release conditions for child pornography charges.
Magistrate judge previously held these conditions were not necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1) and removed them.
The Walsh Act adds mandatory pretrial conditions for certain offenses involving minors, but the magistrate judge found them unconstitutional as applied to Deppish.
The government sought review, and the district court re-imposed the curfew and monitoring after a hearing.
The court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, applying the least restrictive means standard.
The government presents strong physical and testimonial evidence of Deppish’s alleged offenses, including posting sexually suggestive images of a minor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether curfew and electronic monitoring are the least restrictive means.	Deppish argues they are not necessary or least restrictive.	Deppish's position is that the district court erred by not applying least restrictive means.	Yes; conditions upheld as least restrictive.
Whether the weight of the evidence supports pretrial release conditions.	Insufficient evidence to justify monitoring and curfew.	Evidence is strong enough to justify the conditions.	Yes; government evidence supports imposition.

United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of release determinations; standard framework)
United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1990) (factors balancing in § 3142(g); weight of factors not absolute determinants)
United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (danger to community can overcome defendant's favorable history)