Opinion ID: 802933
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutional Challenges to Condition 15

Text: Collins raises a number of constitutional challenges to the restrictions posed by the lifetime term of supervised release containing Condition 15. Collins claims that Condition 15’s residency restriction is so overbroad and punitive that it violates four separate fundamental liberty interests: his right to interstate travel; intrastate travel; freedom of association; and freedom of assembly. Collins also claims that his fundamental right to acquire, own, possess and enjoy property is unconstitutionally abridged by Condition 15, because under the condition he must move whenever a restricted child-oriented establishment is opened within a 2,000-foot radius of his residence. Finally, he contends that the term constitutes excessive punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court need not address the constitutional arguments against Condition 15 at this time, having already decided to remand the supervised release portion of Collins’s sentence to release, generally, for possession only child pornography defendants, as distinguishable from “hands on” or “contact” sex offenders, stating “there is substantial evidence indicating that the current Guidelinesrecommended sentence for possession-only offenders may be difficult to support.” 641 F.3d at 1084. UNITED STATES v. COLLINS 7491 the district court for reconsideration. The Court also leaves open, for now, the question of the constitutionality of the California Penal Code 3003.5(b) residency restriction for lowerrisk defendants of Collins’s class, as that restriction was not objected to by Collins below, and the issue was not brought before the Court on appeal.