United States v. Timothy Wolf Child
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22045
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wolf Child, a Native American, pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl and received 86 months' imprisonment followed by 10 years' supervised release.
- Special condition 9 barred him from residing with or being in the company of any child under 18 and from dating or socializing with anyone with children under 18 unless the probation officer approved in writing.
- The district court imposed condition 9 without specific on-record findings or individualized analysis of Wolf Child’s relationships with his daughters and fiancée.
- Wolf Child shared custody of his oldest daughter and has two younger children with his fiancée; the relationships involve intimate family members affected by the restriction.
- Defense objected to applying condition 9 to Wolf Child’s own daughters; the judge indicated the condition would stand unless circuit review changed it.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded parts 1 and 3 of condition 9, holding procedural error and substantive unreasonableness, and found the restriction overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court follow enhanced procedure for restricting familial association? | Wolf Child’s rights require individualized on-record findings with evidence supporting necessity. | District court’s decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion; formal findings not strictly required in all cases. | Procedural error; enhanced on-record findings required and not satisfied. |
| Are parts 1 and 3 of special condition 9 reasonably related and necessary? | Restrictions are necessary to deter, protect, and rehabilitate given the offense and relationships. | Conditions may serve deterrence; broad restrictions can be justified by probation officer discretion. | Substantively unreasonable; parts 1 and 3 cannot be reimposed as written. |
| Are parts 1 and 3 overbroad or vague in restricting association with intimate family and others with children? | Broader restrictions are permissible if tailored to goals and rights implicated. | Permissible to have some breadth if tied to risk factors and enforceable with conditions. | Overbroad; narrowing required on remand; cannot be reimposed in their current form. |
| May the district court remand with narrowly drawn restrictions if needed? | Remand should allow refined restrictions that target actual risk and preserve liberty. | Remand may permit reimposition of adjusted conditions if properly tailored. | Remand allowed to devise narrowly drawn restrictions reasonably related to goals. |
| Should the case be reassigned to a different district judge on remand? | Conflict of interest or appearance concerns might justify reassignment. | Not warranted given guidance in opinion and lack of unusual circumstances. | Not reassigned; guidance provided for a different judge if needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (enhanced procedures for rights-interfering conditions; life-partner analysis)
- Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (limitations for particularly significant liberty interests require record evidence)
- Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (enhanced procedural requirements for significant liberty interests)
- Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007) (overbreadth and vagueness in associational restrictions)
- Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006) (individualized analysis required for familial association cases)
- Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (interpretation of terms like 'date' and 'socialize' to avoid vagueness)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court 1981) (parental rights and familial association as fundamental liberty interest)
- King, 608 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (define limits of vague or broad “date” and “socialize” terms)