ILNews

7th Circuit vacates child porn supervised-release condition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a sentence for possession of child pornography Thursday that it ruled imposed an unconstitutionally vague condition of supervised release. The court affirmed, in the case, convictions of attempting to distribute heroin and illegal possession of a firearm.

Scott Adkins of Gary was convicted of the heroin count and a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon in a jury trial before Chief Judge Philip P. Simon in the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond. Adkins later pleaded guilty in a separate case to receipt of child pornography.

Authorities in 2009 intercepted a UPS package containing heroin inside stuffed snowmen and tracked it to Adkins’ home with an electronic monitoring device. When Adkins opened the package, the device alerted and agents raided Adkins’ home.

A search turned up two guns and pornographic videos of girls appearing to be 7 or younger, according to the court. Adkins was sentenced to four years of supervised release on the heroin charge and three years of supervised release on the gun charge, concurrent to a term of 15 years supervised release on the child pornography charge.

In accepting supervised release on the child porn charge, Adkins agreed to a condition that he “shall not view or listen to any pornography or sexually stimulating material or sexually oriented material or patronize locations where such material is available.”  

In United States of America v. Scott Adkins, 12-3738, 12-3739, Circuit Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the panel that Adkins was not entitled to a new trial on his argument that the District Court erred in admitting certain evidence and the that jury was improperly instructed. The panel agreed, though, that a special condition of Adkins’ supervised release was vague and constitutionally overbroad, and that it could be appealed even though Adkins agreed to an appeal waiver.

Flaum wrote that an appeal waiver does not preclude the court from reviewing a condition to determine whether it is constitutionally vague, which the panel ruled was the case. “Read literally, this provision might preclude Adkins from using a computer or entering a library – irrespective of what he views in either place,” Flaum wrote. “Indeed, he might not be able to ride the bus, enter a grocery store, watch television, open a magazine or newspaper, read a classic like Romeo and Juliet, or even go out in public (given the ubiquity of advertisements that use potentially sexually oriented or sexually stimulating images to pique customer interest).”

The panel remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to more narrowly tailor the condition.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT