Opinion ID: 613693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Violations of Supervised Release

Text: On September 30, 2009, defendant was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and 120 months’ supervised release on one count of failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. R., Vol. 1, at 10. One of the special conditions on his supervised release restricted his use of computers, and another special condition barred him from viewing, accessing, or possessing sexually explicit materials. Id. at 11. By mid-March 2010, defendant had been released from prison and was serving his term of supervised release. At that time, defendant consented to additional conditions of supervised release, including additional restrictions on his use of computers. Id., Supp. Vol. 1, App. A. In August 2010, a probation officer went to a hostel to check on a convicted sex offender named Andrew Wright. See id., Vol. 2, at 10, 23, 36-37. During that visit, the probation officer was told by a staff member that Wright had been accessing a laptop computer at the room occupied by defendant Brian Charles Olinger and his girlfriend. Id. at 11. When the probation officer confronted Wright a few days later, he admitted that he had accessed that computer with defendant to check his emails. Id. at 11-12. The probation officer called another probation officer and, together, they went to the hostel to search defendant’s room. Id. at 12. Defendant was not there, but his girlfriend was -2- outside in the parking lot with Wright. Id. Defendant’s girlfriend told the officers that the laptop was there in her car. Id. at 12-13. Wright told his probation officer that after talking with defendant’s girlfriend, he “was concerned that it had some things on it . . . that he could get in trouble for and he was concerned because he had not accessed those things but knew that Olinger had and another person.” Id. at 13. He did not say the word “image” or tell the probation officer what was on the computer. Id. Defendant’s girlfriend admitted that defendant used the computer, but did not tell the probation officer what was on it. Id. at 14. The computer was seized and forensically searched on a basic level. See id. at 18-19. It contained approximately 1500 pornographic images, including approximately 200 images of child pornography that came from Internet Explorer. Id. at 26-28, 47. On September 9, 2010, defendant’s probation officer filed a petition alleging that defendant had committed numerous violations of supervised release, including an allegation that he had possessed pornography and an allegation that he had possessed child pornography. Id., Vol. 1, at 16-17. On September 22, 2010, the magistrate judge held a probable cause hearing, concluding that most of the violations would be bound over, including the two allegations that defendant had possessed pornography. Id., Vol. 2, at 4, 56-57. Defendant ultimately admitted three of the alleged violations: accessing a computer with Internet access without prior consent of the U.S. Probation Office, associating with a -3- known felon, and possession of alcohol. Id. at 62. The government agreed for the district court to dismiss, without prejudice, the other allegations, including the two allegations that defendant had possessed pornography. Id. at 62-63. The government presented evidence at the probable cause hearing that defendant had accessed a computer, id. at 11-12, 14, even though he had always written on his monthly probation reports that he had had no unmonitored or unapproved access to a computer, id. at 22-23. A search of the computer revealed that there were accounts in defendant’s name on Yahoo, Adult Friend Finder, and Facebook, all of which are Internet sites, id. at 19-21, and defendant’s girlfriend indicated that she did not know his password until she asked him for it in order to tell the government what it was after her computer was seized, see id. at 12-13, 20, 37-38. One pornographic image was linked to defendant’s email account, id. at 27, and his probation officer determined that he was not at work at two significant times when images of child pornography were accessed, id. at 29. But the probation officer did not know whether the laptop was at the hostel during the times when child pornography was known to have been accessed, id. at 41; four other people also had access to the computer in addition to defendant, id. at 38-39; at least one of the people with access to the computer was Wright, who was also a convicted sex offender, see id. at 10, 36-38; and the government was unable to produce any direct evidence that defendant had viewed the child pornography, id. at 40-41. The probation officer had not checked whether any of -4- the other people with access to the laptop were at work or elsewhere when the images of child pornography were accessed. Id. at 39-40.