United States v. Jason Schultz
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 437
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Schultz was convicted in Maryland (2007) of third-degree sexual assault for a relationship with a 14-year-old when he was 23; federal law required him to register as a sex offender.
- In 2008 Schultz pled guilty in federal court for failing to register and was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release; supervised release began in 2011.
- Schultz’s supervised release was revoked multiple times for violations including alcohol/drug use, failure to comply with reentry center rules, disorderly conduct, drug possession/distribution, and contact with minors.
- At a 2015 revocation hearing the district court sentenced Schultz to 22 months imprisonment followed by 1 year supervised release and imposed three special conditions: (4) ban on owning/possessing pornographic materials and entering pornographic establishments; (5) probation access to search/monitor computers/electronic devices; (6) no contact with minors under 18 without written probation consent (later modified to require probation to facilitate supervised contact with his biological or legally adopted children).
- Schultz appealed the three special conditions, objecting only to Condition 6 at the revocation hearing (seeking regular contact with his one-year-old son); Conditions 4 and 5 were reviewed for plain error, Condition 6 for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of porn ban (Special Condition 4) | Condition not reasonably related to offense; was vague/overbroad; lacked individualized inquiry | Court had identified pattern of inappropriate interest in underage females; protecting children justifies ban | Affirmed — no plain error; reasonably related, tailored, not overbroad |
| Computer monitoring (Special Condition 5) | Imposes broad intrusion on computer use | Monitoring is narrowly aimed to detect pornography access and contact with minors | Affirmed — reasonably necessary to enforce other conditions |
| No-contact with minors including own children (Special Condition 6) | District court failed to make individualized findings; condition not narrowly tailored given desire to contact infant son | District court made individualized findings and modified condition to permit supervised communications/visits coordinated by probation | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; narrowly tailored with modification |
| Standard of review | N/A — Schultz contends error | Government: plain-error for unobjected conditions; abuse-of-discretion for objected condition | Court applied plain-error to 4 & 5, abuse-of-discretion to 6 and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roberts, 687 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2012) (review standard for special conditions when not properly objected to)
- United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain-error test elements)
- United States v. Morais, 670 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court’s broad discretion to impose special conditions tied to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))
- United States v. Mefford, 711 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2013) (upholding pornography bans to protect children)
- United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (supporting restrictions on access to pornography for offenders)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding no-contact condition with minors, including a defendant’s own children, when supported by record)