United States v. Douglas
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20481
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Douglas was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- He has two prior sexual-abuse convictions of children (1992 and 1999) with related probation and registration requirements.
- Douglas’s registration lapses occurred after 2009, with renewed registration in 2011–2012 but not thereafter, and he claimed confusion about the registration duration.
- In 2012 he moved from Illinois to Tennessee without notifying his probation officer or registering in Tennessee.
- The district court imposed a 30-month prison term and five years of supervised release, including several special conditions.
- Douglas did not object to the supervised-release conditions in the district court, but challenges them on appeal as unjustified restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is sex-offender assessment justified on this record? | Douglas argues no current risk justifies assessment given age and remote offenses. | United States asserts recidivism history warrants assessment to guide supervision. | No plain error; assessment justified given recidivism and lack of prior assessment. |
| Validity of restricting establishments that primarily sell alcohol? | Douglas contends restrictions are overbroad and burdens employment. | United States argues relation to alcohol history and public protection supports restriction. | Not plain error; restriction reasonably related and does not bar all employment. |
| Whether probationary visits, associations with felons, and truthful answers to questions are proper? | Douglas claims these conditions unduly curtail liberty under supervision. | Court relies on § 3553(a) factors and supervisory aims to protect the public and rehabilitate. | Conditions upheld; explained and tailored to conduct and supervision needs. |
| Adequacy of the district court's explanation for visit/association/answer requirements? | Douglas argues explanation for need was insufficient (in particular as to visits). | District court provided substantial rationale given history of noncompliance. | Not plain error; explanation adequate under Thompson/Siegel framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (tested § 3583(d) factors and policy statements)
- United States v. Ross, 475 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2007) (deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (vetting of broad supervised-release conditions; notice importance)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (vagueness concerns re association conditions)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (need for explanation linking to § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2015) (purpose of review when challenged conditions lack objection)
- United States v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 2015) (similar analysis of supervising-release conditions)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation/supervision enables restricted liberty)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (probationer compelled questioning vs. privilege)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (role of district court in fact-finding for § 3553(a))