United States v. Wiedower, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3025

Wiedower pled guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
Five supervised-release conditions were imposed: (1) sex-offender treatment with polygraph testing; (2) a broad computer/internet ban absent prior probation approval; (3) a ban on online gaming unless specified in treatment; (4) a ban on possessing or viewing any pornographic or sexually explicit material; (5) no direct contact with minors or entering places where children congregate without approval.
Wiedower objected to the sex-offender treatment condition and computer/internet restrictions at sentencing, which the district court overruled.
Wiedower admitted to obtaining child pornography via fetish chat rooms and online conversations, with evidence suggesting a deeper, ongoing pattern of viewing since around 2001.
The district court’s findings indicated Wiedower’s need for correctional treatment and the court observed candor issues in Wiedower’s statements, supporting the tailored sentence, including the polygraph condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the sex-offender treatment and polygraph conditions properly related to § 3553(a)?	Wiedower contends no individualized findings or justification.	Wiedower argues lack of individualized basis renders the condition improper.	Affirmed; district court’s findings support need for treatment and polygraph.
Are the computer and internet restrictions properly tailored and individualized under Crume?	Restrictions constitute an overbroad, non-tailored restriction applicable to all offenders.	Government asserts need based on Wiedower’s use of computers to seek/receive pornography.	Reversed and remanded for a more narrowly tailored, individualized restriction.
Is the restriction prohibiting possession of pornography or sexually explicit material proper?	Wiedower argues lack of individualized findings and overbreadth.	Court properly restricts due to Wiedower’s deep-rooted affinity for child pornography.	Affirmed; restriction upheld as within court’s discretion given facts.
Is the restriction on contact with minors and entering places where they congregate plain error?	Restriction is overly broad and potentially burdensome without individualized basis.	Court appropriately restricted contact with minors subject to approval.	Affirmed as constricted to conditional ban with possible prior-approval.

Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (struck down broad computer/internet ban where only possession of child pornography occurred)
Ristine, 335 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (upheld porn prohibition where defendant distributed child pornography; supports conditions when tailored to offender)
Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (upheld restrictions on contacting minors/areas where minors congregate with approval process)
Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirmed similar restrictions based on history and rehabilitation goals)
Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (caution against relying on stereotype; requires individualized reasoning for restrictions)
Curry, 627 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2010) (emphasizes need for individualized findings when imposing special conditions)
Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (review standard for conditions imposed at sentencing)