first amendment challenge corrector on and that's what i'm hoping to be the dam in the tide in the western district that we've talked about i have was fortunate to be able to be the trial attorney in this case well so i was the one that  largely objection out supervised release of revocation hearing and in that objection i noted that it was a blanket prohibition on an association right violation and in fact i went further and used by way of contrast a more narrowly tailored condition that was going to be imposed that we were objecting to which was that having contact with minors without the  without question a probation officer with permission isc had the probation outlet would you be standing here today i think i would still be standing here today your honor because of the following which is that it is not raising t related and because of the importance of the freedom association this court as recently as duke's last month in this case talked about that when a courts are looking at association restrictions you look carefully to the liberty interest and it's juxtaposed to the government's interest in protection of the public which would be the only arguable section of thirty five fifty three it relates to this this condition am i correct me if i've got that wrong case the guidelines now it's pretty standard to reimpose the same conditions that were part of the original supervised release conditions so what is there a problem here with saying well you didn't object or that condition before and you're objecting to it now i mean are we really examining something that you should raise or why do why do you get another bite at this apple in your eye i researched before i submitted this brief and back before i went to the district court about the existence of any possible prohibitions i couldn't find any and i think i'm and i hate to assume anything but my assumption is that because when you step in front of a court at a final revocation hearing the court then has an opportunity to impose a sentence in terms of amount of time in prison or not as well as conditions of supervised release it's why actually in this hearing it's final revocation hearing acknowledged to the court i assume the court is going to impose the same conditions imposed before and if that is correct i largely objection to and identified by the number of paragraph each i simply found the law that prohibited and again i think it goes back to the fact that district court and those studies are free to take out conditions are conditions case law in this court it talked about else ellis has a case where the court actually upheld a ban on but that that supervision term be with the permission of a probation officer it allowed it in other words it was not a blanket prohibition it was conditional and it goes further and else factually and ls you have an individual that this court found had previously sexually assaulted four minors and that two of which were his nephews and that he had used those close relationships to be able to prey on the minors absolutely distinct from  conviction is the child pornography patient that judge can you mentioned earlier that he was originally sentenced on in two thousand and six and district court he had no no contact offenses in his history nor does he to this day  he has there's nothing in the record that indicated he used relationships to gain proximity to minors to ben be able to use them for the duke case also talks about s s lawyer is another case where in duke the court mentioned then that no other circuit and nor was it going to be a circuit that up held under conditional lights i'm now i will i will acknowledge that in this case it is not lifetime preserved because i specifically though there was a blanket prohibition that language of blanket prohibition has been used by the court and duke used by the court in the word case and used by the court and paul in each one of those as recently as do the court itself has used the term blanket prohibition and that is the term used secondly i then what about after explain the break of prohibition and said that there were more narrowly tailored hearings today the government was standing there in that in court room and had ample opportunity to object respond required some evidence argue evidence as to why my objection in terms of the blanket prohibition as it related to the other condition of release that i provided as an anecdote and to distinguish and to the association and they provided no response from and so i think then if you look also in doo doo talks about the rodriguez case and again to distinguish it from care avails case you have a kid in rodriguez and individual who had been sexually assaulted his girlfriend's daughter again specific facts that related reasonable relationship to this defendant's characteristics and conduct in the crime that were found by the court and rodriguez and again  evidence in this record nor could there be that mr carrier had ever been involved in contact offense on minors using relationships of able to gain access to minors for sexual misconduct know that exist  conditions and so therefore that got to be something the court to do in the future and that alleviates the harder what do you answer that question absolutely and do this court explain that future modifications have nothing to do with fifth least the fourth and i'd like to address some of the issues that have just been raised and it's true that in alice which is a published opinion the condition that was up held about not dating anyone with children under eighteen was that there was that the ability of the probation officer to give permission the same thing is true and as condition is any different if the probation officer is given the power to modify it or through district court retains it it seems that the district court in dover expresses a different point of view and really what i'm saying is that it that in this particular case maybe those things and do don't apply when you look at it from the district court's perspective if the district court wishes to retain that power and not entrusted to the probation officer then he the court always retains that  ability to modify the reason but isn't that a difficulty because that means that you have to file a motion and get a hearing rather where is the probation safety v or contact with your probation officer and so you can double check and verify because you don't want to run afoul if that's of much more cumbersome process to every time you want to do if you want to go on the internet well can i can i please go on the internet for my job and can i contact my grand kids on the internet that that's what you're arguing is very impractical isn't it it is your honor it is to a certain extent but i think that's within the district courts power to decide for didn't we say and do did it matter yes your honor he did say and do that it mattered and i understand that that gives the defendant easier and quicker access but it doesn't cut off access if you don't give it to the probation officer it doesn't cut off access i mean really there can be a situation and possibly that was the situation in this case where the court originally imposed that and really what's happened here is that effectively the defendants coming in and saying i want in a modern hey i violated supervised release your honor and i want you to modify this this condition or or not impose it and so that and the judge has somebody that's violated after a year and a him he also has some other factors  considering including the fact when this defendant was released on bond he violated the terms of the court's order by associating with minor children that were relatives of his did he abuse them we have no evidence of that but he defied the court when he was arrested for supervised release and then if you look at this defendant's  the probation officer went to the court prior to this to get authority to search his apartment because she believed that that something was going on he put and this is in the detention hearing he put a lock on the gate so when the probation officer came she couldn't surprised him so he had time to hide things so he's engaged in this kind of behavior when he was arrested originally for the for the child pornography offenses he goes well what's your definition of child pornography he says i don't think this is child pornography and he's very a face and he never even if you read the p s mark he never really took responsibility for possessing child pornography he was he is a person who if he met a person he was going to date i don't think the court trusted this man to tell the person oh by the way i have a conviction for child pornography by the way i'm not supposed to be around children i  don't think the district court trusted this man because the face of the district court did not make the specialized finding that this was this was reasonably related fourth particular reason that i i wired you can see that that did not occur it did not occur but i would say this is procedurally very different in a way because this is a revocation and what he did is ease that wall how many years has has you served of supervised release which was roughly the the term so he said it i'm going to reimpose the same conditions and and i think it would be onerous for the district court who had senate to before and impose those conditions of supervised release to have to go through all that and repeated again whether he did it at the initial hearing i don't know that's not part of the record but i don't think the district court should have to go back and say what i again you know i'm going to repeat my reasons for imposing this condition because there are all these requirements for what you have to do in these  hearings have tons of onerous requirements why is that any more onerous than the rest of the things they have to do your honor i think it's because they've they've already said it and that those reasons are based on past behavior and that then you have someone that's to the first amendment and the right of association and then there was an objection that it was not narrowly tailored but there was no objection that was really based on this is it related to this crime or an age you know it doesn't fit this defendant about a blanket it's a blanket prohibition when he said that well he did say that that preserved it for blanket prohibition and it's not nearly tailored well and not because i think he i think he preserved the issue of is it narrowly tailored but i think what he didn't do is say you're honorable what are the reasons why or there is no good reason your honor to impose this condition at all and he didn't say this man is a saint or this man doesn't have a problem or for you know he didn't do any of that get into the latter position that the first amendment is preserved but the other is not preserved is that your position will in and to the extend that it that you're also talking about narrowly tailored he clearly said that in his objection that it could be more narrowly tailored the district court basically said is under all the circumstances here we are a year and a half later you're first amendment ground we don't even have to address the standard of review or of the merits of the statutory issue do we know you are think so if if it fall it's the first amendment and you address whether it violates the first amendment will i in your honor i've been a number of cases and i think i did cite one in my brief and and and convicted offenders lose lots of rights and he's on supervised release so he's not entitled to all of the rights sim privileges that we all are as free citizens it's it's different and you know these days people don't want to hear certain you know certain people don't have friends but that is what the law is that you give up certain rights winter convicted i mean for example whatsoever that a restriction such as this would be upheld under the first amendment i don't know if i have one that's that's pacific but certainly there are cases that say for a for someone that's a child offender associating with minor serve or being prohibited from that kind of association it is is constitutional and i would be happy to to follow a supplemental but i do believe there's a case to my brief i just don't have it right now and i don't know if that specific enough what is the government's understanding of the treatment of conditions like this in the other circuits i think there's a ninth circuit case out there i don't know that it's a direct down the condition yes it did but only case that you're aware of that's the only case that i'm aware of now and i think that included prohibiting him from dating his fiance so i mean i think there was a fiance and you know so i think the facts of that are different that was out of the night circumventing but a but i think the whole freedom of association is really paul i think the defendant talked about or there were some coding the defendant who said he went to a meanings and he went on i've had to shelters or something to find dysfunctional people so that he could do you know meet their children i just ate do you know the risk of harm to a child outweighs the liberty interest of this  seen in other cases where they have put on the government actually puts on an expert that says there's a link between viewing the pornography and then the defense puts on next bird and says no there's really not a link and in fact they've shown that there have a lower percentage in you and that all gets fleshed out and then the court can decide whether or not this is related to the to the affinities here there was an objection because of because that was a reimposition and because this is is a sentence on revocation of supervised release and so he's really imposing the same thing you know if you and and told the court but to just look at one particular issue they wouldn't really litigate everything and i think that was probably what was going through the district court's mind as i've already done m he's asking me to change it and i'm i'm sticking with what i have said well we're protecting children is protect children there's not any authority  to protect children is there that's right or i think other than common sense kind of like that i think or you do can protect children yes your honor i think this is a commonsense kind of condition and especially if you read that statement paul you know you understand that people take advantage of special relationships i think that's why we see such abuse between relatives i think this could have been put on the record before the district court could it could have been your honor but i don't know if that was required i can't conceive that because i just don't believe that the district courts required to do it again ban on dating and what they state what they noted is what what we've noted as well is that in las again ellis had gone about using his close family relationships to be able to gain access to  next he was very example to sexually assault so you do have another circuit out there this discussed a more similar context of her veil which is an individual that has no history of using the relationships to gain access for sexual abuse of the new offense it's a violation of the court's trust that's the whole of the arena underlies revocation of supervised release so your client wants asked to test say that the district judge was wrong in saying in a situation a year and a half after this whole sentence was imposed and we have a violation that he's not interested in in a breach of trust situation that he is not interested in that quote was we don't think the district court trustee well i can understand and what's at issue is a violation of the court's trust that is exactly what supervised release focuses while the supervised violating the court's trust in terms of of the sense of he he went out into made an act he had all of this brought into his house and the only violation that was found in this case was the misusing the middle name on them terms of that and more importantly as a matter of legal issue is that i haven't seen case law that says a term of supervised release can be based on the court's trust what it is it relates back to thirty five fifty three and thirty five eighty three which is they have to be the reason we're related and they have to be narrowly tailored and it can't be a greater deprivation of liberty interest necessary  framework and as the court said and do when it relates to association restrictions very mindful and careful to make sure to to weigh and balance that and as far as the government's and that's the point the court making about you know in a revocation hearing and i think judge overheard said exactly correct which is that it it could become onerous at a revocation hearing to have the court recite and go through the supervised release condition and we're going to go back to square one and we're gonna look at every one of these supervised release conditions that's pinching and we're gonna read sam and i'm going to start over again a year and a half later and in this case