Opinion ID: 794479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: farrell's parole revocation and subsequent proceedings

Text: 20 On June 7, 1996, a preliminary parole revocation hearing was held before a hearing officer appointed by the Board of Parole. At the hearing, Officer Burke described the events leading up to Farrell's arrest and testified that the condition of parole had been imposed by a prior parole officer and continued in effect after Burke took over Farrell's case. Burke further explained that as Farrell's parole officer he had the discretion to impose special conditions if necessary, but that in this case he had simply followed the conditions set by the prior officer, which he understood to be standard for sex offenders. 21 Burke also explained that he had deemed Scum and My Comrade pornographic because [t]hey have pictures of nude men in them. On cross-examination, Farrell's counsel asked whether it was Burke's conclusion then that any pictures of nude men are pornographic. Apparently referring to My Comrade, Burke replied: I wouldn't say all pictures of nude men are pornographic but I believe these are pornographic based upon the title and also based upon the positions that these nude men are in. Some of these pictures here are pornographic. Gay Sex is the title. Farrell's counsel then asked about specific examples: 22 MR. NATHANSON: Are you saying, for example, that that condition of parole would prohibit Mr. Farrell from possessing, say, Playboy magazine? 23 P.O. BURKE: Yes. 24 MR. NATHANSON: Are you saying that that condition of parole would prohibit Mr. Farrell from possessing a photograph of Michelangelo['s] David? 25 P.O. BURKE: What is that? 26 MR. NATHANSON: Are you familiar with that sculpture? 27 P.O. BURKE: No. 28 MR. NATHANSON: If I tell you it's a large sculpture of a nude youth with his genitals exposed and visible, does that help to refresh your memory of what that is? 29 P.O. BURKE: If he possessed that, yes, he would be locked up for that. 30 MR. NATHANSON: Would that definition of pornographic include written materials that do not contain pictures? 31 P.O. BURKE: No. 32 MR. NATHANSON: Definitely not? 33 P.O. BURKE: No. I wouldn't believe that this is pornographic [indicating Best Gay Erotica 1996 ]. . . . There is no pictures in it. 34 MR. NATHANSON: Leaving aside Best Gay Erotica 1996, are there any books that contain no pictures that you would have arrested Farrell for, if it had no pictures? 35 P.O. BURKE: If it had just words in it, no pictures, I probably would not arrest him. I would run it past my supervisor and let him make that decision. 36 Burke testified that he believed Scum and My Comrade to be obscene under New York law, but said he did not know whether something could be pornographic without being obscene. The hearing officer found probable cause to believe that Farrell had violated his parole, and Farrell was held for a final hearing. 37 Both Farrell and Burke testified at the final revocation hearing on July 18 and 22, 1996. At this hearing, Farrell testified that he had purchased Scum in 1995 and that he did not think buying or possessing Scum violated his conditions of parole. He acknowledged that he had been aware of the no-pornography condition, but testified that he thought it related to [t]he kind of stuff that you would get in an adult book store or an x-rated movie or a book that has pictures of people engaging in sex activity where the whole purpose of the book is to arouse your sexual appetite. Asked again what he would think of as a pornographic book, Farrell replied, [a] book that has pictures of people engaging in sexual activity, a videotape of a similar nature and a book whose sole purpose is to pander with people's sexual arousal. 38 As to Scum and My Comrade, Farrell testified as follows: 39 Well, I didn't think they were pornographic materials because — well, My Comrade, I had purchased before I went to prison and I had it before that, so it wasn't — when they said pornographic materials, that's not the victim of my conscience of that [sic] because it's a satirical magazine that looks at popular culture and forms of popular culture and used to poke fun at, you know, existing conditions, but I didn't think it was used as an erotic book, much less a pornographic book. Scum, although the erotic reading is centered to (inaudible), it's not what I think [of] as pornography because it's not (inaudible), exaggerated or one-minded depictions of sexual life whereas Scum makes an attempt to get real gender material so you can have history of the way homosexuals lead their lives and about a third of the book is dedicated to the editor's analysis of the way sexual behavior is reported in mainstream newspapers and used as a hypocrites [sic] of society about the difference between people, what people say about sex and between the way they actually behave and the attitudes about society, about homosexuality versus heterosexuality. So, I didn't think they were pornographic books. 40 Farrell presumably referred to the Sex in the News sections discussed above, and to the author biography at the end of the book, which states: 41 I consider this history, not pornography, Boyd says of his books . . . . It's very serious work. A lot of people in the gay press put it down as just being jack off, but I don't write it for that. I consider these books the true history of homosexual desire and experience. Any gay publications that do not deal with the elemental discussion of gay sexual desire are not serious — they are frivolous. 42 Scum 199. Although the book proclaims the cultural value of reprinting graphic stories of sexual encounters in this brief author biography and in a one-page introduction, the rest of Scum contains only the stories and accompanying photographs. 43 The state administrative law judge (ALJ) presiding over the hearing concluded that My Comrade was not pornographic but that Scum was. The ALJ stated: 44 While My Comrade may be considered a satirical magazine depicting the gay lifestyle the same cannot be said of Scum. This book contains numerous pictures [of] frontal male nudity, erect penises and males fondling their genitals. The stories in the book mainly describe explicit sexual encounters between males. Most disturbing is the numerous stories which describe sexual encounters involving underage males. I find that the parolee whose underlying [offense] involves sexual activity with underage males was aware that materials containing such descriptions were pornographic and prohibited. I therefore find that the parolee violated his parole. 45 Farrell's parole was revoked, and he was ordered held until the expiration of his maximum sentence. The ALJ's decision was affirmed without opinion by the Commissioner of Parole on August 16, 1996. In all, Farrell was incarcerated on account of the parole revocation from May 29, 1996 until October 17, 1996. 46 On June 12, 1996, between the time of his preliminary and final revocation hearings, Farrell filed a writ of habeas corpus in State Supreme Court, Bronx County, see People ex rel. Christopher Farrell v. Michael P. Jacobson, et al. (Index No. 16921/97 S.Ct. Bronx County), challenging the parole revocation proceedings. On October 17, 1996, the day of Farrell's release, the petition was withdrawn and the proceeding was dismissed. Farrell did not seek to overturn the revocation by initiating further proceedings in state court. Thus, the legality of Farrell's parole revocation has never been adjudicated in a state judicial proceeding. 47 On July 31, 1997, Farrell instituted the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He sought a declaration that the imposition of the special condition was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, damages against Burke for imposing the special condition, and damages against Burke and Freeman for arresting him. 48 On October 21, 1998, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Farrell's claims based on the First Amendment, holding that Farrell had no unrestricted right to possess pornography. See Farrell v. Burke, No. 97 Civ. 5708, 1998 WL 751695, 2, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16896, at  (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 1998). On December 8, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining claims. See Farrell v. Burke, No. 97 Civ. 5708, 2004 WL 2813175, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24658 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2004). The district court held that Burke could not be personally liable for the imposition of the special condition because he did not impose it, and that Farrell could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the special condition because it did not sufficiently implicate his First Amendment rights. 2 The court also held that the ALJ's finding that Farrell was aware that Scum violated the special condition was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and that it therefore could not reach the merits of Farrell's as-applied vagueness challenge. Farrell timely appealed.