United States v. Hugo Thompson, Jr.
888 F.3d 347
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Hugo Thompson was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and released to a three-year term of supervised release.
- While on supervised release he pleaded guilty in state court to sexual misconduct (indecent exposure) involving a child and admitted additional supervised-release violations (associating with a felon; failure to notify probation of law-enforcement contact).
- The district court revoked supervised release, sentenced Thompson to 18 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 months’ supervised release, and imposed ten special conditions; Thompson appealed seven of them.
- Thompson did not object to the special conditions at the revocation hearing, so the Eighth Circuit applied plain-error review.
- The court evaluated whether each challenged condition complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d): reasonably related to § 3553(a) factors, no greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, and consistent with Sentencing Commission policy.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error and that the challenged conditions were permissible as applied to Thompson’s history of sexual offenses against minors and related concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for unobjected-to conditions | Conditions unenforceable because court failed to make individualized findings | Plain-error review applies; conditions need not be explained in detail if record permits review | Plain-error standard; Thompson failed to show obvious error affecting substantial rights; no relief |
| Condition 2: sex-offense evaluation, treatment, physiological testing | Not reasonably related to drug-trafficking conviction; improperly delegates judicial power; testing is overbroad | Condition relates to his intervening sex-offense conviction and prior sexual-offense history; delegation to probation is limited and permissible; testing is tied to treatment | Affirmed: condition reasonably related to history and permissible delegation; physiological testing permissible as part of treatment |
| Condition 4: searches of person/residence/computer based on reasonable suspicion | Overbroad and unrelated because no computer-related history | § 3583(d) expressly authorizes search condition for felon required to register as sex offender; Thompson is such a registrant | Affirmed: search condition authorized by statute and reasonably applied |
| Conditions 5–7 (no contact/proximity/ employment with minors) and Conditions 8–9 (obscene material; private mailboxes/storage) | Vague, overbroad, paralyzing for employment and associational rights; not tied to his convictions for drugs | Court relied on Thompson’s convictions for sexual offenses against minors, registration history, and risk of using mail/lockers for illicit materials; written condition for obscenity is limited to obscene material | Affirmed: restrictions reasonably related to protecting minors and deterring future offenses; obscenity and mailbox limits upheld as not plainly vague or excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review of unobjected conditions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for plain-error relief)
- United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2005) (§ 3583(d) framework)
- United States v. Hart, 829 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2016) (detailed findings encouraged but not always required)
- United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2010) (conditions related to other offenses permissible)
- United States v. Smart, 472 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2006) (similar)
- United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006) (limited delegation to probation officers permissible)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding no-contact and exclusion-from-child-areas conditions)
- United States v. Thompson, 653 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding restrictions on volunteer/employment involving children)
- United States v. Key, 832 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding obscenity-possession condition with legal limits)
- United States v. Schultz, 845 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2017) (upholding pornography ban where necessary to protect minors)
- United States v. Muhlenbruch, 682 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding mailbox/storage restrictions to prevent receipt of illicit materials)
- Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977) (obscenity scope can be ascertained with sufficient ease)