United States v. Justin Deatherage
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12984
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Deatherage was charged with four counts of receiving and one count of possessing child pornography downloaded July 14–17, 2008.
- He pled guilty to the possession count in November 2010 and was sentenced to 70 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
- The district court imposed 10 special conditions of supervised release; Deatherage objected to four conditions on appeal.
- The government and defense presented extensive evidence at a two-day hearing, including chats, wire recordings, and forensic images.
- The district court credited credibility findings that Deatherage had fantasies and real engagements with children, supporting a lengthy supervision regime.
- The panel applies plain error review to whether the conditions were sufficiently individualized and properly explained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Condition 4 (adult pornography ban) is abuse of discretion | Condition closely tied to offense and risk; reasonable under 3583(d). | Overbroad, lacking individualized findings; violates First Amendment concerns. | Not abuse; upheld given offense nexus and child-protection purpose. |
| Whether Special Condition 5 (computer/internet restriction with monitoring) is valid | Related to the offense and Deatherage’s history; monitoring appropriate. | Too broad; impedes legitimate societal functioning. | Not abuse; limited monitoring is permissible and connected to offense. |
| Whether Special Condition 2 (alcohol abstinence during treatment) constitutes plain error | Alcohol ban during treatment is reasonable for treatment goals. | Plain error given lack of alcohol history and disproportional impact. | No plain error; condition permissible because tied to treatment needs. |
| Whether Special Condition 8 (financial disclosure) constitutes plain error | Rationally connected to monitoring offender finances; evidence of arrears supports. | Not clearly tied to offense; lacks individualized grounds. | No plain error; condition upheld given monitoring purpose and record context. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (special conditions may restrict rights if properly related to offense)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (review of special conditions for abuse of discretion when objected)
- United States v. Springston, 650 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasized individualized inquiry and discernability from record)
- United States v. Thompson, 653 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (basis for imposed condition may be discerned from record)
- United States v. Smith, 655 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2011) (record must support individualized findings for conditions)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (vacated broad porn bans not tied to individualized record)