United States v. Smith
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19062
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Smith pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA; district court imposed 15 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release with special conditions.
- Smith has prior sex-offense conviction (1998) and a 2007 Iowa failure-to-register conviction, and later moved to Nebraska.
- SORNA requires registration in every jurisdiction where a sex offender resides, works, or studies; Smith knowingly failed to register in Nebraska.
- PSR recommended 21–27 months; court downward-departed to a IV Criminal History Category, yielding a 15–21 month guideline range and sentenced to 15 months.
- At sentencing, the court imposed 14 special conditions of supervised release, including a surveillance-search condition, no-contact with minors, proximity and employment restrictions, and treatment requirements; Smith challenged several conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Condition 6 is impermissibly broad. | Smith argues Condition 6 is overbroad and lacks individualized findings. | Smith asserts the district court failed to support the sweeping restriction with individualized facts. | Condition 6 vacated and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether Conditions 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are properly tailored and supported. | Smith contends these conditions are not reasonably related or overly restrictive. | Government argues conditions are standard for sex-offender supervision and supported by record. | Conditions 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 affirmed. |
| Whether the district court made adequate individualized findings for the conditions. | Lack of explicit individualized findings; harmless error argued. | Record supports the conditions; lack of explicit findings harmless. | Harmless error; no abuse of discretion in these findings. |
| Whether the conditions constitute an improper delegation of authority to the Probation Office. | Argues delegation bypasses judicial control. | Delegation is permissible with retained judicial responsibility. | No improper delegation; district court retained control. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review of special conditions; permissible to relate to offense and defendant's history)
- United States v. Springston, 650 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2011) (individualized inquiry required; findings may be based on non-false information)
- United States v. Mayo, 642 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2011) (non-false information permissible for findings)
- United States v. Fenner, 600 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2010) (cannot rely on pure speculation for conditions)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits on grounds for imposing conditions)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (prohibition on contact with minors upheld where waiver by probation officer possible)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding protective restrictions with need for individualized facts)
- United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (no-contact conditions may be justified for sex offenses)
- United States v. Kent, 209 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2000) (treatment-related conditions may be appropriate based on history)
- United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 1999) (rehabilitation-based treatment conditions permissible when history supports)
- United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2011) (SORNA as non-coercive to states; funding consequence)
- Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011) (Supreme Court on standing regarding Ninth Amendment concerns)
- Waddle v. United States, 612 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior panel precedent on SORNA challenges)
- Hacker v. United States, 565 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2009) (rejection of ex post facto and standing challenges to SORNA)