United States v. Larry Thompson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1036
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Thompson, previously convicted in federal court for possession of child pornography, was required to register as a sex offender under SORNA and served multiple prison terms with registration conditions.
- After serving his second sentence, Thompson lived in Corpus Christi, then moved with a roommate to McKinney, Texas in September 2013, transporting most belongings in a one-way U-Haul and leaving apartment keys behind.
- Thompson did not update his sex-offender registration after leaving Corpus Christi; he alternated between hotels and camping in McKinney and stayed about twenty days before arrest.
- A McKinney police officer discovered Thompson when responding to a parked U-Haul and learned of his outstanding warrant and failure to register; Thompson was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to register/update under SORNA.
- At trial, the jury convicted Thompson; on appeal he raised (1) an as-applied Necessary and Proper Clause challenge to SORNA, (2) insufficiency of evidence for a change of residence, (3) suppression/Miranda-related objections to prior extradition interview testimony, and (4) errors in jury instructions about “resides”/change of residence and the SMART 30-day guideline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Necessary and Proper Clause | SORNA cannot criminalize purely intrastate failure to register absent military service or federal-property nexus | Congress can criminalize intrastate failure to register as a necessary and proper extension of federal powers tied to underlying federal convictions | Court rejected challenge; SORNA constitutional under Necessary and Proper and precedents like Kebodeaux/Brune govern |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Thompson changed residence | Thompson argued he was merely traveling/itinerant and had not established a settled habitual residence in McKinney | Government showed planning to move, one-way U-Haul, majority of belongings moved, keys left, weeks in McKinney — constituting abandonment of prior residence | Court held evidence sufficient for jury to find abandonment and habitual residence in McKinney; conviction stands |
| Suppression / Miranda challenge to 2011 extradition interview testimony | Thompson claimed Lujan continued interrogation after he requested counsel and procured a coerced waiver; testimony prejudiced his lack-of-knowledge defense | Government and district court found no unambiguous invocation, no trickery, and voluntary statements; testimony admissible | Court affirmed denial of suppression; findings not clearly erroneous and Miranda issue did not require exclusion |
| Jury instructions on "resides," change of residence, and 30-day SMART guideline safe harbor | Thompson argued instructions overbroad, wrongly treated abandonment as change of residence, and should include 30-day SMART safe harbor | Government cited precedent and SMART qualification that a person who abandons a residence and intends to live in new jurisdiction must register within three business days | Court upheld instructions as accurate statements of law and declined to give misleading 30-day-only instruction; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013) (Supreme Court upheld SORNA registration under Necessary and Proper and Military Regulation Clause)
- United States v. Brune, 767 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2014) (upheld SORNA as a rational extension of Congress’s authority tied to federal child-pornography statute)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (framework for Necessary and Proper analysis)
- United States v. Van Buren, 599 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding permanent abandonment constitutes a change of residence under SORNA)
- United States v. Voice, 622 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (itinerant defendants cannot avoid SORNA registration by sleeping in different shelters nightly)
- United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 2011) (permanent abandonment is a change of residence regardless of new residence adoption)
- United States v. Wampler, 703 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding jury instruction defining "resides" to include those without fixed address)
- United States v. Harris, 666 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review and evaluating evidence in light most favorable to verdict)