847 F. Supp. 2d 350
N.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Karper is charged by Indictment with receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B) and 2266(8)(A), 2256(8)(A).
- A search of Karper’s residence yielded about 179 images of child pornography, which Karper admitted downloading.
- Karper appeared for arraignment on March 17, 2011; he was released on conditions including home detention and electronic monitoring.
- The Adam Walsh Act amendments to the Bail Reform Act mandate electronic monitoring as a minimum condition for cases involving a minor victim under specified statutes.
- Karper moved to strike the mandatory conditions, arguing violations of due process and excessive bail; the Government opposed.
- The court evaluates the Act under the Bail Reform Act framework, addressing due process and Eighth Amendment challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process facial challenge to the Adam Walsh Act | Karper contends Act imposes mandatory conditions without a hearing or discretion. | Karper argues the Act precludes individualized determinations and violates due process. | Facial due process challenge rejected; later addressed as applied. |
| As-applied challenge to the Adam Walsh Act | Act unjustifiably deprives Karper of hearing and discretion given his circumstances. | Act applies equally; mandatory conditions are appropriate in all such cases. | As-applied challenge granted; Act unconstitutional as applied to Karper. |
| Eighth Amendment excessive bail as applied | Mandatory curfew and electronic monitoring constitute excessive bail for Karper’s circumstances. | Detention conditions may be permissible to protect public safety. | Excessive bail claim sustained as applied; conditions found excessive for Karper. |
| Facial validity of Adam Walsh Act under Eighth Amendment | Act cannot be upheld as facially valid due to due process concerns. | Act can be constitutional in some circumstances; facial validity should not be dismissed outright. | Facial Eighth Amendment challenge fails; however, the Act is unconstitutional as applied to Karper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (dangerousness and pretrial detention with procedural safeguards)
- United States v. Polouizzi, 697 F.Supp.2d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (Adam Walsh Act use and presumption; as applied considerations)
- United States v. Arzberger, 592 F.Supp.2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (procedural safeguards and discretionary release conditions)
- United States v. Crowell, 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (mandated conditions and irrebuttable presumptions)
- United States v. Peeples, 630 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2010) (circuit view on Walsh Act constitutionality)
- United States v. Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2010) (Walsh Act challenges robust analysis)
- United States v. Kennedy, 327 Fed.Appx. 706 (9th Cir. 2009) (Walsh Act considerations in appellate context)
- United States v. Smedley, 611 F.Supp.2d 971 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (facial challenges to Walsh Act)
- United States v. Merritt, 612 F.Supp.2d 1074 (D. Neb. 2009) (Walsh Act and due process discussion)