Tuesday, June 08, 2021

US v. Gibson, No. 20-10074 (5-20-21)(Bennett w/Clifton & Nguyen). This opinion deals with supervised release conditions on the defendant convicted of receipt of child porn. The 9th affirms the conditions imposing place restrictions and risk notification for third parties. The defendant challenged these conditions as being unconstitutionally vague. He argues that the condition barring going to places “primarily used by children” was too vague and overbroad. The 9th finds it wasn’t; the conditions were set for children under the age of 18; and the examples of parks schools, childcare facilities and playgrounds were examples and would not bar going to national parks nor universities. The use of “primarily” for children under 18 can be understood. The condition is also not overbroad. The 9th acknowledges it is broad, but it addresses the defendant’s specific acts, protects the public, and promotes his rehabilitation by keeping him away from temptation. The “mens rea” element is interpreted as “knowingly.” Notification of third parties is upheld. It does not bestow too much discretion in the probation officer as to whom it might apply. The standard condition, taken from the Guidelines, sets the notification based upon the defendant’s criminal record. It requires specific instructions to the defendant and requires specific compliance.

The decision is here:



Post a Comment

<< Home