United States v. Thompson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18292
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Thompson pled guilty to receipt and distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2).
- District court sentenced Thompson to 60 months imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
- Investigator linked Thompson’s IP to distribution of child pornography; police later recovered explicit material from Thompson’s apartment.
- Thompson objected to several proposed special supervised-release conditions (8–10, 13–18) as unnecessary, overbroad, vague, or improper delegation.
- The court imposed many of the Probation Office’s conditions and provided some adjustments in response to objections.
- Appellant challenges the nine specific special conditions as abusive of discretion or improper delegation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Conditions 8, 9, and 10 were proper. | Thompson argues no history of abuse; these conditions unnecessarily restrict contact with minors. | Court may restrict contact with minors to protect the public and rehabilitation given the offense. | Not an abuse of discretion; conditions reasonably necessary and not overly restrictive. |
| Whether Special Conditions 13–15 impermissibly delegate judicial authority. | Delegation to probation to determine treatment, polygraph testing, and information sharing is improper. | No affirmative indication of improper delegation; conditions valid with individualized consideration. | Not an impermissible delegation; conditions upheld. |
| Whether Special Condition 16 (ban on sexually explicit material) is reasonable, not vague or overbroad. | Lacks individualized findings and may be vague/overbroad about pornography. | Record supports restriction given Thompson's sexual interest in children; not vague or overbroad. | Harmless error for lack of explicit findings; not overbroad or vague given record and statutory guidance. |
| Whether Special Conditions 17 and 18 unnecessarily broaden liberty restrictions. | Standard conditions suffice; 17–18 are overkill. | Court explained need to monitor employment/residence changes and computer restrictions; appropriate. | Not abuse of discretion; conditions justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006) (prior approval before contact with minors reasonable for supervised release)
- United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (special conditions restricting contact with minors justified)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (support for restrictions on possession of pornography; tailored to record)
- United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding ban on possession of pornography/explicit material when appropriate)
- United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding ban on sexually explicit material for certain offenders)
- United States v. Carlson, 406 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2005) (harmless-error analysis for lack of explicit findings when justified on record)
- United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (defining scope of sexually explicit material for vagueness/overbreadth considerations)