Opinion ID: 794140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bar on Direct and Indirect Contact

Text: 39 The district court tried to make Johnson cognizant of the requirement that he reasonably avoid and/or remove himself from situations in which he has indirect contact with a minor. (emphasis added). This goal was implemented in the following four modifications: 40 3. You shall not have any direct contact with a person under the age of 18.... 41 4. You shall not have indirect contact with a person under the age of 18 through another person or through a device (including a telephone, computer, radio, or other means) .... 42 5. You shall reasonably avoid and remove yourself from situations in which you have any other form of contact with a minor. 43 6. You shall not be in any area in which persons under the age of 18 are likely to congregate, such as school grounds, child care centers, or playgrounds.... 44 (emphasis added). Johnson challenges the direct and indirect contact conditions of his supervised release as unconstitutionally vague. According to Johnson, the condition of supervised release is missing language pertaining to ... intent or awareness, such that Johnson might innocently or unintentionally have indirect contact with a minor that would violate [a] condition of supervised release. 45 The Due Process clause requires that Conditions of supervised release ... `give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.' United States v. Balon, 384 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 343 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir.2003)). However, conditions need not be cast in letters six feet high, or ... describe every possible permutation, or ... spell out every last, self-evident detail. Conditions... may afford fair warning even if they are not precise to the point of pedantry. United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.1994). 46 In response to Johnson's concerns, the district court expanded on the wording sought by the government, and specified that indirect contact includes contact through a device (such as a phone) or through an intermediary (such as another person). The court thus refined the term to involve some purposeful initiative. As so modified, even the maximal scope of the contact provisions allows a person of ordinary intelligence to know what is prohibited. 47 When Johnson protested that the government's proposed condition might result in a violation based on unintentional conduct, the court agreed that the word `indirect' casts too broad of a net. The court's decision expressed the intent to limit the modification to ensuring that Johnson is cognizant of the requirement that he reasonably avoid and/or remove himself from situations in which he has indirect contact with a minor. 48 Generally, supervised release provisions are read to exclude inadvertent violations. In Arciniega v. Freeman, the Supreme Court assumed that a term barring association with ex-convicts does not cover incidental contacts. 404 U.S. 4, 4, 92 S.Ct. 22, 30 L.Ed.2d 126 (1971) ( per curiam ). This rule of construction likewise applies here to quiet Johnson's concerns. 49 Finally, the structure of the supervised release modifications clearly indicates that inadvertent contact with minors does not (without more) result in a violation. In addition to the direct and indirect contact provisions, the district court required Johnson to reasonably avoid and remove himself from situations in which he has any contact with a minor. If Johnson's failure to leave triggers a supervised release violation, it follows that he may avoid a violation by extricating himself from situations in which inadvertent contact with minors occurs. Absent an inadvertent encounter with a minor that is precipitated by some lack of care to avoid it, the modified conditions assure that no violation occurs where incidental contact is followed by immediate removal. 50 Since the conditions provide clear notice of what conduct they prohibit and do not demand the impossible, Johnson's vagueness challenge fails.