Opinion ID: 1450936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Associational Conditions

Text: Conditions 16-19 limit where Goddard can work and live. Condition 16 prohibits working in an environment that causes regular contact with persons under the age of 18, [5] Condition 17 precludes working for a company whose principle product involves materials depicting sexually explicit conduct, [6] and Condition 18 requires employment to be approved by the probation officer. [7] Goddard submits that the work restrictions are impermissible under § 5F1.5 of the Guidelines because there is no reasonable relationship between possessing child pornography and working in a warehouse, as he has in the past. He also submits they last too long, but we don't see how given that the term of supervised release is ten years. The government defends the conditions, pointing out that they do not prevent Goddard from doing his past work where he did not, and will not, regularly contact minors. Section 5F1.5 allows restrictions that prohibit a defendant from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession, or that limit the terms on which he may do so, if the court determines that there is a reasonably direct relationship between the defendant's work and the conduct relevant to the offense, and that the restriction is necessary to protect the public because, without it, the defendant will continue to engage in similar unlawful conduct. U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. This standard for occupational restrictions applies on top of the criteria in § 3583(d). However, heightened scrutiny is not triggered here because Conditions 16-18 do not restrict Goddard's ability to work as a warehouse foreman, his occupation before he was convicted. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1009 (9th Cir.2008). Goddard's concern that minors might inadvertently walk into the warehouse portion of the building is misplaced, for the conditions have to do with regular, not accidental, contact with minors. Considering the goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public, the district court had discretion to impose Conditions 16 and 17, and did not plainly err in imposing Condition 18. They aim to keep Goddard, whose offense was possessing child pornography and who had previously been convicted of groping a teenage girl, from being around minors and being exposed to sexually explicit material. The district court properly exercised its discretion in requiring prior approval of Goddard's residence as well. Condition 19 is valid for essentially the same reasons as the work restrictions. [8] Goddard contends the condition is unnecessary because other conditions, which require him to register as a sex offender and restrict him from going to or working at places frequented by minors, already cover the concerns it addresses. However, prior approval of where he lives is reasonably related to deterrence, rehabilitation and protecting the public because it assists the probation officer in monitoring his proximity to minors, and in turn, keeping him away from them. See United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1235-36 (9th Cir.1998) (requiring prior approval of probation officer before having contact with children or loitering near schools, parks, playgrounds, and the like that are primarily used by children under 18).