# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 37 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W il li am Earl M effo rd

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 3

Fil ed : Ap ril 4, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Afte r W il li am Mef

fo rd pl ed gu il ty to fa il ur e to reg is te r as a se x o ffen de r, th e

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 18 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d 10 y ears su pe rv is ed 1

The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.rel eas e. Mef fo rd ch al le ng es two of hi s sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e whi ch

pr oh ib it hi m

fro m po ss es si ng or o bt ai ni ng an y po rn og rap hi c m at eri al . W e aff irm.

I.

In 20 10 Mef

fo rd co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty to fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 50

. Mef fo rd was req ui red to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r 2

be cau se he ha d pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of se xu al ly ab us in g hi s da ug ht er fro m he r

ag e 7 to 14

. His cri m in al hi st or y al so in cl ud es two a rres ts fo r in de cen t ex po su re

whe n he was a juv en il e an d con vi ct io ns fo r ou tra gi ng pu bl ic de cen cy by hi di ng in a

wom en ’s res tro om at th e st at e fai r an d ta ki ng pi ct ur es fro m un de r a st al l, pr es en ti ng

a fo rg ed in st ru m en t, an d be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Afte r p l e a d i n g

gu i l t y to th e fai lu re to reg is te r of fen se
, Mef

fo rd co m pl et ed hi s 18 m on th pr is on

se nt en ce an d b eg an hi s 1 0 years o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Jan ua ry 20 11

.

W hi le on su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Sep te m be r 20 11 , M effo rd ’s p ro ba ti on of fic er

vi si te d hi s ho m e an d fo un d a po rn og rap hi c m ag azi ne ti tl ed “ Fi na ll y Leg al .” The fro nt

co ve r of th e m ag azi ne in cl ud ed a di sc la im er th at al l of th e feat ur ed wom en were ag e

18 or ol de r an d po rtr ay ed as ad ul ts

, bu t th e im ag es th ro u g h ou t were of wom en

dr es se d an d st y le d in a way to gi ve th e ap pe aran c e o f t e e n a g e sc ho ol gi rls

. It is

un di sp ut ed th at th is was a le ga l mag a z i n e
, an d Mef fo rd ’s po ss es si on of it di d no t

vi ol at e an y

ex is ti ng co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. His pr ob at io n offi cer was

no ne th el es s co nc ern ed be cau se th e wom en ha d be en m ad e to ap pe ar un de rag e, an d

su ch m at eri al m ig ht lea d M effo rd to en ga ge ag ai n i n d ev ia nt sex ua l b eh av io r.

The ne xt da y Mef

fo rd m et w i t h h i s pr ob at io n of fic er an d ag reed to a

m od ifi cat io n of t h e co nd it io ns of hi s rel eas e so th at he wou ld be “ pr oh ib it ed fro m

His co nv ic ti on was rece nt ly affi rm ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Fern an de z, et al

., No. 2

12 -2 78 4 (8 th Cir . Apr. 1 , 20 13 ) (p er cu ria m ).

-2

-po ss es si ng po rn og rap hy in an y fo rm .” In a si gn ed fo rm Mef fo rd waiv ed hi s rig ht to

a he ari ng an d th e as si st an ce of co un se l reg ard in g th is ch an ge

. At th at ti m e Mef fo rd

was be in g rep res en te d in th e ap pe al of hi s co nv ic ti on by a fed eral pu bl ic d e f e n de r,

w h o i mm ed ia te ly co nt act ed hi m up on le arn in g of th e m od ifi ed co nd it io n. The n

th ro ug h co un se l, Me f

f o r d mov ed th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d hi s earl ie r waiv er of

co un se l in vo lu nt ary an d to reco ns i d e r t h e m od ifi cat io n. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a

he ari ng on th e m ot io n, Mef fo rd an d hi s pr ob at io n of

fic er te st ifi ed

, an d th e m ag azi ne

was in tro du ced as a n e xh ib it

.

Th e d i s t r ic t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Mef fo rd ha d va li dl y waiv ed hi s rig ht s an d

de ci de d to m od ify hi s co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The co ur t im po se d th ree ne w

sp eci al co nd it io ns
, th e fir st two rel at ed to po ss es si ng or ob ta in in g an y po rn og rap hi c

m at eri al :

i. Defen da nt sh al l no t acce ss
, vi ew, po ss es s, o r ha ve un de r hi s

co n t r o l an y po rn og rap hy, in cl ud in g an y m at eri al th at de pi ct s or

al lu de s to se xu al act iv it y , or se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t as de fin ed

by 18 U.S.C. § 22 56 (2 ). Thi s in cl ud es
, bu t is no t li m it ed to

, an y

su ch m at eri al ob ta in ed th ro ug h acce ss to an y co m pu te r or an y

ot he r el ect ro ni c d ev ic e, an d a ny tha t ar e se lf- pr od uc ed

. ii

. Defen da nt sh al l n o t en te r an y lo cat io n whe re po rn og rap hy,

ero ti ca, o r ad ul t en te rta in m en t ca n b e o bt ai ne d o r vi ewed

.

The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it ha d co nd uc te d an “ in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry in to th e

fact s an d ci rcu m st a nc es un de rlyin g [Me ffo rd ’s] cas e” an d fo un d th es e sp eci al

co nd it io ns to be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e se nt en ci ng fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

The co ur t ci te d Mef

fo rd ’s hi st or y of se xu al ly ab us in g hi s da ug ht er an d ta ki ng
pi ct ur es un de r th e st al l in a wom en ’s ba th ro om
, as well as hi s pa st arre st s fo r in de cen t

ex po su re, as in di cat io ns of h i s a c t i ng on “ se xu al pe rv ers io ns .” Eve n th ou gh th e

-3

-m ag azi ne in Mef fo rd ’s po ss es si on was le ga l, it was wor ris om e to th e co ur t b ecau se

it was m ean t to de pi ct yo u t h f ul pe rs on s an d th us su pp or te d a fin di ng th at Mef fo rd

p o s es a ris k of rep eat in g “ hi s se xu al de vi an t co nd uc t to ward s ch il dr en .” Th e c o u r t

ex pl ai ne d th at a to ta l po rn og r a p h y b an wou ld he lp Mef fo rd res is t hi s “ ap pa ren t

te m pt at io ns an d de te r hi m fro m on ce ag ai n cro ss in g t h e l i n e t o se xu al ly as sa ul t a

ch il d.” Meff

or d a pp eal s s pe ci al co nd it io ns on e an d t wo o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e. 3

II.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on o f t h e te rm s an d co nd it io ns of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r ab us e of d i s c r e t i o n. Uni te d St at es v. Bo st on
, 49 4 F.3 d 66 0,

66 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). A di st ric t c ou rt en joy s br oa d di sc ret io n ov er a de fen da nt ’s

co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e pr ov id ed th at each co nditio n (1 ) is reas on ab ly rel at ed

to th e p ert in en t § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s, (2 ) in vo lv es no gre at er d ep riv at io n o f

li be rty th an reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry fo r th e pu rp os e s se t fo rth in § 35 53 (a), an d (3 ) is

co ns is te nt wit h an y pe rti ne nt po li cy st at em en ts is s u e d b y th e Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on

. Id

. An “ in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry” m us t be co n d u c t ed an d

su f f ic ie nt fin di ng s en te red in th e reco rd to en su re th at th e co nd it io n sa ti sf ie s th es e

st at ut or y req ui rem en ts si nc e co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e can no t be cat eg or ic al ly

im po se d on al l th os e co nv ic te d of a pa rti cu la r of fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Sch aefe r, 67 5

F.3 d 1 12 2, 1 12 4– 25 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) . Sin ce we ar e “ pa rti cu la rly rel uc ta nt to up ho ld

swe e p i ng res tri ct io ns on im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s,” we rev ie w co ns ti tu ti on al

ch al le ng es to su ch co nd it io ns de no vo

. Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn a l qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

Beyond hi s ch al le ng e to sp eci al co nd it io ns on e an d two

, Mef fo rd arg ue s th at 3

an earl ie r co nd it io n he ha d agr eed to wit h hi s pro ba ti on of fic er was in va li d bec au se he ha d no t vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed hi s rig ht s

. Th i s arg um en t is m oo t be cau se th at

co nd it io n was rep la ced by spe ci al co nd it io ns on e an d t wo.

-4

-Mef

fo rd fir st arg ue s th at sp eci al co nd it io ns on e an d two are ne it he r su pp or te d

by in di vi du al iz ed fact fin di ng no r reas on a b l y r e l a te d to th e pe rti ne nt § 35 53 (a)

se nt en ci ng fact or s. W e di sa gr ee. Th e di st ric t co ur t sp eci fic al ly st at ed th at it ha d

co nd uc te d an “ in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry” in to Mef fo rd ’s cas e. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at

a ba n on al l po rn og rap hy w a s w a r r a n t ed be cau se te ch ni cal ly l eg al m at eri al li ke th e

“ Fi na ll y Leg al ” m ag azi ne fo un d in hi s po ss es si on co ul d no ne th el es s st im ul at e se xu al

de vi an ce to ward s ch il dr en

. It al so ci te d a n u mb er of rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s,

in cl ud in g Mef

fo rd ’s c r im in al hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs
, de te rren ce an d pr ot ect in g

th e pu bl ic fro m fu tu re cri m es
, an d Mef fo rd ’s reh ab il i t a t i o n. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 35 53 (a)( 1) –( 2) . W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in

co nc lu di ng th at a co m

pl et e ba n on Mef

fo rd ’s po ss es si ng or ob ta in in g po rn og rap hi c

m at eri al is ap pr op ria te

.

Mef fo rd ne xt arg ue s th at sp ec i a l co nd it io ns on e an d two in vo lv e a gr eat er

de pr iv at io n of li be rty th an reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry be cau se th ey are un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

o v e rb ro ad an d va gu e. W e “ care fu ll y rev ie w br oa d ba ns on po ss es si ng se xu al l y

ex pl ic it m at eri al s be cau se th ey im pl ic at e im po rta nt Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s.” Uni te d

St at es v. Deat he rag e, 68 2 F.3 d 75 5, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W e wil l on ly s tri ke do wn

a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e as un co ns ti tu ti on al ly ov erb ro ad “ if it s ov erb read th

is real an d su bs ta nt ia l in rel at io n t o i t s pl ai nl y le gi ti m at e swe ep .” Uni te d St at es v.

Tho m ps on , 65 3 F .3d 68 8, 6 95 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e h av e h owe ve r up he ld a n um be r

of s u pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns th at su bs ta nt ia ll y li m it or co m pl et el y ba n se x

of fen de rs fro m po ss es si ng po rn og rap hy. See Un it ed Sta te s v. Kell y , 6 77 F.3 d 37 3,

37 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng cas es ). In co nt ras t, we of te n r e je c t c on di ti on s ba nn in g

m at eri al s wit h “ nu di ty” be cau se su ch br ead th m ay well reac h pr ot ect ed fo rm s of art

. Id . (ci ti ng cas es ).

W e co nc l u d e t ha t sp eci al co nd it io ns on e an d two are no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

ov erb ro ad

. The di st ric t co ur t in te nd ed th at Mef fo rd on ly be pr oh ib it ed fro m

po ss es si ng or ob ta in in g po rn og rap hy, th us st eeri ng cl ear of ou r nu di ty cas e la w. The

-5

-di st r i c t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th es e “ are li m it ed res tri ct io ns th at se rv e th e pu rp os e of

[ § ] 35 53 (a) whi le pr es erv in g th e Defen da nt ’s rig ht to vi ew an d/ or po ss es s no n

ob sc en e m at eri al th at m ay co nt ai n nu di ty.” On th is reco rd we can no t co nc lu de th at

an y ov erb read th in th es e res tri ct io ns is “ real an d su bs ta nt i a l ” in rel at io n to th ei r

“ pl ai nl y leg it im at e swe ep .” Tho m ps on , 65 3 F .3d at 6 95

.

Sp eci al co nd it io n on e ba ns Mef fo rd fro m po ss es si ng “ an y po rn og rap hy.” Thi s

la ng ua ge is si m il ar to th at in m an y co nd it io ns we ha ve pr ev io us ly up he ld

. See, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. W ie do wer, 63 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 2, 49 6– 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (an y “ fo rm of

m ed ia co nt ai ni ng po rn og rap hi c im ag es ”); Bo st on
, 49 4 F.3 d at 66 7– 68 (“ an y fo rm of

po rn og rap hy”); Uni te d St at es v. Ri st in e, 33 5 F.3 d 69 2, 69 4– 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ an y

po rn og rap hi c m at eri al s” ). In li gh t of Mef fo rd ’s pa st se x cri m es
, hi s reh ab il it at io n,

an d th e ne ed to pr ot ect ch il dr en fro m fu tu re ex pl oi ta ti on
, we be li ev e th at ba nn in g hi m

fro m po ss es si ng “ an y po rn og rap hy” is “ ap pr op ria te ly ta il or ed ” to hi s ci rcu m st an ces

an d th us c o n s t i t u t io na l. See Ri st in e, 33 5 F.3 d at 69 4– 95

. Our co nc lu si on th at th is

sp eci al co nd it io n is no t ov erb ro ad is al so su pp or te d by th e fact th at th e te rm “ se xu al ly

ex pl ic it co nd uc t” is m od ifi ed by it s de fin it io n in 18 U.S.C. § 22 56 (2 ), whi ch

de sc rib es on ly gr ap hi c se x act s. In ad di ti on
, we un de rs ta nd th e ph ras e “ in cl ud in g an y

m at eri al th at de pi ct s or all ud es to se xu al act iv it y ” as li m it ed ex cl us iv el y to m at eri al

th at is co ns id ered “ po rn og rap hy,” th e wor d im m ed ia te ly p r e c e d in g th at ph ras e in

sp eci al co nd it io n o ne

.

W e ne xt tur

n to spe ci al cond it io n two whi ch pr oh ib it s Mef fo rd fro m “ en te r[i ng ]

an y lo cat io n whe re po rn og rap hy, ero ti ca, or ad ul t en te rta in m en t can be ob ta in ed or

vi ewed .” Thi s la ng ua ge is vi rtu al ly id en ti cal to wor di ng we ha ve pr ev io us ly up he ld

. See Ri st in e, 33 5 F.3 d at 69 4– 95 (d efen da n t pr oh ib it ed fro m en te rin g “ an y

es ta bl is hm en t wh ere p or no gr ap hy or ero ti ca ca n b e o bt ai ne d or vi ewed ”). So m e o f

ou r m or e rece nt cas es ha ve up he ld ba ns on se x of fen de rs ’ en te rin g cert ai n lo cat io ns

whe re th e “ pr im ary” pr od uc t or se rv ic e be in g of fere d is po rn og rap hy, ero ti ca, or ad ul t

-6

-en te rta in m en t. See, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. Mu hl en br uc h, 68 2 F.3 d 10 96

, 11 05 (8 th

Ci r. 20 12 ); Bo st on
, 49 4 F.3 d at 66 4, 66 7– 68

. W hi le su ch li m it in g te rm s m ig ht ha ve

be en us efu l he re, we ne ve rth el es s co nc lu de th at sp eci al co nd it io n tw o is

co ns ti tu ti on al

.

Fo r th es e reas on s we affi rm th e im po si ti on of sp eci al co nd it io ns on e an d two

on Meff or d’s s up erv is ed rel eas e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-