121 F.4th 946
1st Cir.2024Background
- Kevin Millette was convicted twice for possession of child pornography, most recently federal charges related to a large collection of illicit images and videos.
- After Millette's early release from incarceration, his supervised release terms included special conditions, notably prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors (including his teenage daughter) except in the presence of an approved responsible adult.
- Millette violated this condition by repeatedly sleeping in the same bedroom as his minor daughter without an approved adult present, as discovered by his probation officer during a home visit.
- The district court found Millette in violation, revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to a short prison term, and reimposed the same special conditions upon release.
- Millette appealed, arguing both the ambiguity of the "presence" requirement in the special condition and its impact on his parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Millette's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity of "in the presence of" in Special Condition | Condition ambiguous; "presence" should include responsible adult anywhere in house; lenity applies. | "Presence" means immediate vicinity; context and purpose require more than adult in a different room. | No ambiguity; commonsense reading requires supervisor's immediate presence. |
| Legal sufficiency of the revocation based on ambiguity | Lenity should apply to resolve any ambiguity in defendant’s favor. | No "grievous ambiguity"—condition clear enough for conduct guidance. | Lenity inapplicable; condition is clear. |
| Reimposition of special condition post-violation | Insufficient explanation; overbroad restriction on parenting rights. | Condition is reasonably related to risk factors and offender’s history; record supports need. | Sufficient, case-specific explanation; condition is proper and not unduly restrictive. |
| Impact on parenting/minor association rights | Overly restricts constitutional parental rights. | Only requires supervised (not prohibited) contact; ample opportunity for supervised parenting remains. | No outright ban; limitation appropriate given history and ongoing risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1994) (supervised release conditions must be clear and are read commonsensically)
- United States v. Pabon, 819 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2016) (conditions limiting minor contact must be reasonably related to offense and history)
- United States v. Del Valle-Cruz, 785 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2015) (greater justification required for supervised release conditions affecting parental rights)
- United States v. Garrasteguy, 559 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2009) (district court need not provide detailed written explanation if reasoning is clear from record)