## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 22 93

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e The od or e Jo se ph Sch aefe r, * Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. * App el le e. *

*

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 11
Fil ed : Ap ril 9, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The od or e J. Sch aefe r was co nv ic te d of on e co un t of kn owi ng ly po ss es si ng
ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) an d 2 2 52 A(b )(2 ).

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 97 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by te n y ears 1

of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

. S c h aefe r ap pe al s two sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is io n.

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

The Hon or ab l e Li nd a R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.Sp eci al co nd it io n 7 pro vi de s:

Th e de fen da nt sh al l ha ve no co nt act wit h ch il dr en un de r th e ag e o f 1 8 (in cl ud in g th ro ug h le tt ers , co m m un ic at io n d ev ic es , au di o or vi su al
de vi ces , vi si ts

, el ect ro ni c m ai l, th e In te rn et

, or an y co nt act th r o u g h a th ird pa rty) with ou t t he pri or writ te n c on se nt of t he pro ba ti on off ic e.

Sp eci al co nd it io n 8 pro vi de s:

The de fen da nt is pr oh ib it ed fro m pl aces whe re m in or ch il dr en un de r th e
ag e of 18 co ng reg at e, su ch as res id en ces , pa rk s, be ach es , po ol s, da y care

cen te rs , pl ay gr ou nd s, an d sc ho ol s wit ho ut th e pr io r writ te n co ns en t of
th e p ro ba ti on off

ic e.

As Sch aefe r ob

jecte d in th e di st ric t co ur t, hi s co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

rece iv e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n rev ie w. Unit ed St at es v. Sm it h

, 65 5 F.3 d 83 9, 84 4 (8t h

Ci r. 20 11 ).

A di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n to im po s e s p e c i a l co nd it io ns of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e , s o lo ng as each co nd it io n co m pl ie s wit h th e

r e q u i r e ment s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ). Sect io n 35 83 (d ) fir s t

req ui res th at a sp eci al co nd it io n m us t be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e na tu re

an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on , th e de fen da nt ’s hi st or y

an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e de te rren ce of cri m in al co nd uc t, th e pr ot ect io n of
th e p u b l i c fro m fu rth er cri m es of th e de fen da nt

, an d th e de fen da nt ’s
ed uc at io na l, vo cat io na l, m ed ic al

, or ot he r co rrec ti on al ne ed s. A sp eci al

co nd it io n ne ed no t be rel at ed to al l th e fact or s; th e fact or s are to be weig he d in de pe nd en tl y

. Seco nd

, a sp eci al co nd it io n al so m us t in vo lv e

no gr eat er de pr iv at io n of li be rty th a n is reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to de te r cri m in al co nd uc t, to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es of th e de fen da nt

, an d to pr ov id e fo r th e de fen da nt ’s ed uc at io na l, vo cat io na l,

m ed ic al

, an d ot he r co rrec ti on al ne ed s. Fi na ll y , a sp eci al co nd it io n m us t b e co ns is te nt wit h an y pe rti ne nt po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m iss ion

. In fa shi oni ng a sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed
rel eas e, a co ur t m

us t m ak e an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry int o th e fact s an d

-2

-ci r c u ms ta nc es un de rlyin g a cas e an d m ak e su ffi ci en t fin di ng s on th e

r eco rd so as to en su re th at th e sp eci al co nd it io n sa ti sf ie s th e st at u t o r y
req ui rem en ts

.

Unit ed St at es v. Sp ri n g

s t o n , 65 0 F.3 d 11 53

, 11 55 -5 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on

m ark s an d fu rth er ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. A co ur t’s “ fin di ng s m ay be ba se d on an y

in fo rm at io n ot he r th an m at eri al ly fal se in fo rm at io n.” Unit ed St at es v. Ma yo , 64 2

F.3 d 62 8, 63 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ). W hi le th is co u r t e n c o u r a ge s de ta il ed

fin di ng s, it is en ou gh th at th e ba si s fo r th e im po se d co nd it io n can be di sc ern ed fro m

th e reco rd

. Sm it

h

, 6 55 F.3 d at 84 5. Howev er, a di st ric t co ur t m ay no t im po se

co nd it i o n s “ ‘on th e ba si s of pu re sp ecu la ti on or as su m pt io ns .’ ” Unit

ed St at es v.

Fenn er , 6 00 F.3 d 1 0 1 4

, 1 0 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), qu ot in g Unit ed St at es v. Kr ei ti ng er , 57 6 F.3 d 50 0, 50 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )

. Fi na ll y , th is co ur t rev ie ws th e te rm s an d

co nd it io ns of su pe r v i s e d rel eas e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, rev ers in g whe n th e

se nt en ci ng co ur t “ fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t an d si gn ifi can t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t

w e i g h t to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t

co mm i ts a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Unit ed St at es v.

Wa lt er s , 64 3 F.3 d 10 77

, 10 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), qu ot in g Unit ed St at es v. As al at i

, 61 5

F.3 d 1 00 1, 1 00 6 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

On su bs ta nt iv e rev ie w, th is co ur t co ns id ers th e to ta li ty of th e fact s, in cl ud in g:

th e rec en cy

of t he co nd uc t p ro m

pt in g t he co nd it io ns , th e ex te nt an d s ev eri ty of th at

co nd uc t, th e pr ob at io n of fic er’s au th or it y to waiv e th e co nd it io ns , an d ho w se ve rel y

th e co nd it io ns res tri ct th e de fen da nt ’s li be rty. Se e , e.g

. , Unit ed St at es v. St ul ts

, 57 5

F.3 d 83 4, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Unit ed St at es v. Sm ar t

, 47 2 F.3 d 55 6, 55 8- 59 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ). Thi s co ur t is “ pa rti cu la rly rel uc ta nt to up ho ld s w e e p i ng res tri ct io ns on

im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s,” an d ap pl ie s de no vo rev ie w to su c h co nd it io ns

. Unit ed St at es v. Kel ly

, 62 5 F.3 d 51 6, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-3

-Sch aefe r ch al le ng es th e two sp eci al co nd it io ns be cau se th ey pr oh ib it hi m fro m

ha vi ng co nt act wit h, or bei ng ne ar, chi ld ren (in cl ud in g hi s two dau gh te rs ). He sa y s

t h e co nd it io ns are no t na rro wly ta il or ed

, or reas on ab ly rel at ed to hi s of fe n s e , h i s

hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , or pr ot ect io n of th e pu bl ic

. Sch aefe r em ph as iz es th at hi s

co nv ic ti on was fo r po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, no t di st rib ut in g or tra di ng ch il d

po rn og r a p h y ; he ha s no pr io r cri m in al hi st or y ; an d, th e pu bl ic is pr ot ect ed be cau se
he ha d si gn ifi can t un pr ob le m at ic co nt act s wit h hi s ch il dr en whi le on pr et ria l rel eas e.

Sch aefe r in vo ke s U

n it ed St at es v. Dav is , 4 52 F.3 d 99 1, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ).

The Dav is cas e do es reco gn iz e th is co ur t’s rel uc ta nc e – im pl em en te d by de no vo

rev ie w – to up ho ld swe ep in g rest ric ti on s on im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, su ch as

th e pa ren t-c hi ld rel at io ns hi p. Id

. ; se e Kel ly

, 62 5 F.3 d at 52 0. Howev er, th e Dav is

cas e al so reco gn iz es th at th is co ur t up ho ld s co nd it io ns req ui rin g pe rm is si on of a

pr ob at io n of

fic er be fo re a de fen da nt m ay co nt act hi s or he r m in or ch il dr en if th e

reco rd sh ow s tha t th e co nd it io n is no m or e res tri ct iv e th en reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry ba se d

on an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry. Dav is , 45 2 F .3d at 9 95 ; Sm it h , 65 5 F .3d at 8 45

.

The reco rd he re sh ows a n i n di vi du al iz ed ba si s fo r th e sp eci al co nd it io ns of

su pe rv is io n. In a writ te n “ Sen te nc in g Mem or an du m ,” th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at

Sch aefe r’s m ot iv e was “ to tra de th at [ch il d] po rn og rap hy.”

Cl earl y , he ha d th e in te nt to di st rib ut e ch il d po rn og rap hy to ot he rs

. His

on li ne ch at s es ta bl is h th at he was ve ry in te res te d i n tra di ng ch il d

po rn og rap hy wit h ot he rs , al th ou gh du e to co m pu te r gl i t c h e s he fo un d
hi m se lf wit ho ut an y th in g to tra de

. He st at ed he was tryin g to reb ui ld an in ve nt or y of p or no gr ap hy.

W hi le fin di ng “ no ev id en ce of in ap pr op ria te co nd uc t be twee n th e D e f en da nt an d

ch il dr en ,” th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d he ha d “ ex pr es se d an in te res t in go in g in to bu si ne ss
wit h t hi s [o nl in e] frien d a nd sel li ng hi s fr ie nd ’s dau gh te r fo r m on ey .”

-4

-At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e d i s t ric t co ur t he ard arg um en t on th e two

co nd it io ns

. The co ur t th en ov erru le d th e ob jecti on s “ ba se d o n wh at I ha ve to go by

to da y ” an d “ to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic .” The co ur t no te d th at Sch aefe r ha d in di cat ed “ so m e

in te res t in ch il dr e n en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t.” As to Co nd it io n 7– no

co nt act wit h ch il dr en un de r 1 8

– th e co ur t st res se d th at it fo un d “ no effe ct ” on hi s
bi ol og ic al ch il dr en be cau se by th e ti m e of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, hi s ch il dr en wou ld be

ov er 18

. As to Co nd it io n 8– no t be in g at pl aces whe re ch il dr en were– th e co ur t st at ed

th at aft er h is st an da rd sex -o ffen de r ev al ua ti on , it m ay m od ify tha t co nd it io n.

I n su m , th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e two co nd it io ns aft er an in di vi du al iz ed

an al y si s of Sch aefe r, em

ph as iz in g it s au th or it y to m od ify th e m un de r 18 U.S.C. §

35 83 (e). Th e co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng th e two co nd it io ns . To

th e ex te nt th at th e c on di ti on s res tri ct hi s pa ren t-c hi ld rel at io ns hi p, th is co ur t, on de

no vo re v i e w , a g r e es th at th e who le reco rd su pp or ts th e co nd it io ns , in li gh t of th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of no effe ct on Sch aefe r’s own ch il dr en an d reco gn it io n of it s

au th or it y to m od ify the co nd it io ns

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

______________________________

-5

-