conditions i was hers that they're not supposed to be one size fits all they are supposed to be narrowly tailored based on the particular circumstances of the defendant and the case and the court is not supposed to impose a condition  obviously we don't know what may happen but i think that the case law sufficient sufficiently shows that this is the appropriate form that we shouldn't wait and put the defendant in the position of having to violate and then come back before the court but that's simply not necessary so i don't believe i believe that this is officially right at this time and i think if you look at the and some of that in which came out earlier this year that demonstrates part of the problem when we when this does not come off early in the process in the actual case he was repeatedly violated because he was trying to and first off i believe that our position is that the condition should not remain that there were in fact a last restrictive condition that could have been imposed mr folks did not object to outpatient treatment but did not believe that residence where you're going to be spending three days a week and a consultation with other people several early situated what's wrong with that well if in fact we're just something the question of the probation officer that's what they do that they do could he not object to it at that point well if you don't have to go through the additional process of having to go back into court and having to do right six months is a pretty long time it is a pretty long time and which is why i said that and given the fact that we are getting so much discretion to the probation officer i think we do need to recognize that the condition must be the least restrictive condition o if for example the senate before the court that in history of problems with outpatient treatment was not able to complete you know can continue to respond after going through various terms and outpatient treatment i find it really hard to believe that in a sex offender situation where somebody has got a potential clinical problem that to say that the condition of release can't include the option for some inpatient which could be as few as three to one one day  some judgment that doesn't say automatically it's not a direct order into civil commitment so it's been scaled back but there's you know in that in this system we've got with probation officers that's the play in the minimizes the risk that he might act on that in front of someone certainly a condition can be imposed to deal with those issues absolutely we're just saying they need to be in these restrictive conditions  absolutely hasn't happened here correct in order to make sure that it doesn't happen why isn't the solution for this court to say that condition should be conditions just not necessary that i really wanted to have a polygraph testing to question him about any other activities that may have occurred and if that's not the case and i think just not worth it  that's right i mean we don't believe that inflation treatment would necessarily be the most appropriate thing for him that necessarily will aid in his rehabilitation any way shape or form a fact one argument that could be made is that an inpatient treatment program would put him in contact with really doesn't have a problem so he wouldn't be tempted to say go to inpatient treatment the and that's certainly could is possible but the other hand it could also mean that the probation officer is it this way it's mr folks from court only evaluate in terms of the condition prohibitive possession of a legal adult pornography and limit his ability to possess his own writings i mean that that's the only argument was presented to the court and i think that's the only argument that the court considered the sort of court certainly didn't consider the argument presented here in terms of all of the protected speech not offensive protected speech that swept under this condition of the it was that over breath argument that they were considering it was i just don't believe that the court considered the full scope of the condition and that's what we're talking about here  certain issues that were raised in the p s r he objected to the fine being imposed for example and was fully aware of his right to do so and was fully aware of his ability to object to the conditions of supervised release the he ordered child pornography from a law enforcement officer he admitted to being sexually aroused by children he admitted writing stories about children engaging in rape and learning to enjoy it he talked about it meaning to masturbating with images of twelve to thirteen year old girls clearly his own admissions his own  lot of leeway but they do need to be narrow narrow narrowly tailored and that the least with the impatient construct the burden really has been put on the defendant to defend against having to be put into custody in effect by way of an inpatient circumstance rather than leaving it up to the probation officer to come men who is a first time offender no history of actual anything other than fantasizing why wouldn't the regime be appropriate in such a circumstance to limit says up front the probation officer doesn't have to go as no burden to come back to the court and say i was going to spend some time in in this clinical as opposed to saying he's gone through these outpatient courses and we've decided of the you know the clinic the medical professionals are saying we need something more your honor so that puts the both of burden the reason i've saying this is probably easier for the probation officer to get in there but you're not saying why it's narrowly tailored but the premise of my question maybe i need to make it clear is that you start out presumably narrow you're saying it's better to give it to the probation officer broadly and then let him individual by email so he was not merely the recipient of unexpectantly understand inappropriate and that is correct but that does not mean that the court abuse the district court abused its discretion in imposing a condition that he participate in any special kind of treatment program there is no place that i have found believe that you have a problem that you must resolve it is inappropriate for you to be distributing child pornography it is inappropriate for you to be masturbating in front of images of twelve or thirteen or girls and writing about girls being raped and learning to enjoy  offender treatment program but nonetheless it is a separate mission and low fashion control the situation and if the court this court is going to consider the other conditions it certainly was not a plain error by the district court to impose this had mansergh authority  conditions nine eleven which deal with loitering within one hundred feet of schools and parks and other places frequented by children as well as living with in direct view of those types of places likewise minors without the presence of a legal guardian or parent and without first giving notice of his prior france was also not clearly erroneous the defendant's offense a conviction his background