United States v. Todd Hobbs
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6448
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hobbs pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B).
- The district court downward-variance sentence: 60 months in prison plus five years of supervised release.
- Special Condition #11 requires probation approval before Hobbs may reside with or contact children under 18, including his own.
- Special Condition #20 prohibits possessing sexually stimulating or sexually oriented material unless approved by the probation officer in consultation with treatment providers.
- Probation Officer had recommended 21 special conditions based on Hobbs’s alcohol dependence and criminal history; the plan included treatment and monitoring.
- Hobbs challenges these conditions as overbroad or unnecessarily restrictive; the court applies abuse-of-discretion review, with heightened scrutiny for rights-related restrictions, which were found not sweeping and thus permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Special Condition 11 violates Hobbs's parent-child liberty interest. | Hobbs contends the condition infringes his right to live with his children. | Court found individualized need and public-protection rationale justified the condition. | Not an abuse of discretion; individualized inquiry supports condition. |
| Whether Special Condition 20 is overbroad or vague. | Hobbs argues the material restriction is vague overreach. | Restriction is tailored to the offense and treatment context; not overbroad. | Not overbroad; condition is limited and connected to rehabilitation. |
| Whether the court should remand for explicit consideration of initial move-in with children. | N/A | Probation discretion suffices with district-court review. | Premature to remand; leave to probation officer with prompt district-court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir.2010) (upholding conditions requiring permission before contacting minor family members)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir.2009) (upholding contact-restriction conditions with individualized need)
- United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505 (8th Cir.2005) (prior sexual exploration of minor family member as relevant context)
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir.2005) (mother as prior victim; restrictions tailored to history with minors)
- United States v. Vick, 421 F.3d 794 (8th Cir.2005) (condition tailored to defendant's history with minors)
- United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755 (8th Cir.2012) (discussion of sexually explicit materials restriction context)
- United States v. Schaefer, 675 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir.2012) (noting heightened scrutiny for rights-restrictive conditions in certain contexts)