Opinion ID: 151630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Internet Ban as Condition of Supervised Release

Text: Tome argues the condition of his one-year supervised releaseimposing a one-year ban on all access to the Internetis unreasonably broad, unduly restrictive, and violates his constitutional rights. [2] A district court may impose any condition of supervised release it deems appropriate so long as it comports with the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1089 (11th Cir.2003). The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A district court may impose a supervised release condition that: (1) is reasonably related to the § 3553(a) factors, (2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in § 3553(a), and (3) is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1084 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b)). It is not necessary for a special condition to be supported by each § 3553(a) factor; rather, each factor is an independent consideration to be weighed. United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003). `Moreover, while the Sentencing Guidelines recognize that a condition of supervised release should not unduly restrict a defendant's liberty, a condition is not invalid simply because it affects a probationer's ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights.' Id. (quoting United States v. Bull, 214 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir.2000)). Given that Tome violated his first supervised release by having inappropriate Internet contact with other convicted sex offenders, that his underlying conviction involved child pornography downloaded from the Internet to his personal computer, and his prior criminal history, Tome has not shown the district court abused its discretion in imposing a one-year Internet ban as a condition of Tome's second supervised release. Specifically, Tome violated the terms of his prior supervised release by using the Internet on multiple computers to communicate with sex offenders; failing to register at least six e-mail addresses, which he then used to communicate with sex-offender inmates; and sending a graphic letter to one inmate describing Tome's having sex with at least seven childrenconduct related to the very offense for which Tome was originally convicted. Tome's underlying conviction for possession of child pornography also concerned child images obtained from the Internet, and his prior criminal history includes his exposing his penis to a minor on five occasions. Child pornography is freely available on the Internet, and its usage is hard to monitor. On these facts, a year-long Internet ban is reasonably related to multiple § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of Tome's offenses and supervised release violations, the need to deter Tome from a second round of supervised release violations and from downloading and distributing child pornography, to reflect the seriousness of his 13 supervised release violations, to help Tome with his rehabilitative treatment, to provide just punishment, and, in particular, to protect both the child victims used in Internet pornography and children who use the Internet. See United States v. Moran, 573 F.3d 1132, 1141 (11th Cir.2009) (Although the internet provides valuable resources for information and communication, it also serves as a dangerous forum in which an offender can freely access child pornography and communicate with potential victims.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1879, 176 L.Ed.2d 362 (2010); Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1092 (noting the strong link between child pornography and the Internet, and the need to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders). Indeed, courts have upheld similar sex-offender supervised release conditions of significantly longer duration. See Moran, 573 F.3d at 1140-41 (upholding 3-year term of supervised release requiring sex-offender defendant to obtain probation officer's permission to access Internet); Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1086-87, 1093 (upholding 3-year Internet ban, with exception upon probation officer approval, where defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography); United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272, 274, 283 (2d Cir.2006) (upholding unconditional 3-year Internet ban for sex offender); United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 160, 170 (5th Cir.2001) (upholding unconditional 3-year term of supervised release prohibiting defendant from using computers, the Internet, ... or any item capable of producing a visual image where defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography); see also Taylor, 338 F.3d at 1286 (upholding 3-year term of supervised release prohibiting defendant from entering into any area where children frequently congregate where defendant was convicted of using the Internet to encourage persons to engage in criminal sexual activity with a minor). We also reject Tome's contention that his Internet ban is a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. Tome was convicted of child sex offenses involving the Internet and then violated his initial supervised release conditions by using the Internet to contact other sex offenders. Tome's case involved his first being put on supervised release that allowed him limited access to the Internet for employment-related reasons and required him to disclose to his probation officer all non-employment-related Internet use. Tome promptly violated those conditions multiple times. He not only failed to disclose that he accessed the Internet for personal reasons, but also used the Internet to contact by e-mail six sex offenders, several of whom also had child pornography convictions. Tome has shown his unwillingness to conform his behavior to more-lenient restrictions. Although Tome argues the year-long Internet ban would prevent him from submitting on-line job applications and performing jobs that require use of the Internet, Tome does not state which jobs he might be qualified for or whether any of those potential jobs would require him to use the Internet. [3] Tome has not shown a day-to-day vocational need for the Internet. Nor does Tome articulate how his expressive activities will be adversely affected by the Internet ban. We acknowledge that Tome relies on cases from other circuits concluding in certain circumstances that an Internet access ban during a term of supervised release is impermissible. But these cases are materially different because they involve a lengthier Internet ban, do not specify the duration of the ban, involve criminal conduct that was unrelated to the Internet, or do not involve a prior supervised release violation. See, e.g., United States v. Heckman, 592 F.3d 400, 403, 407 (3d Cir.2010) (lifetime Internet ban and no prior supervised release violation); United States v. Holm, 326 F.3d 872, 874, 877-78 (7th Cir. 2003) (length of supervised release not specified, no prior supervised release violation, and defendant had a 30-year history of working in computer telecommunications and intended to be so employed during his supervised release); United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.2002) (3-year Internet ban and no prior supervised release violation); United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir.2001) (5-year Internet ban, no prior supervised release violation, and defendant's underlying conviction was for bank larceny and did not involve computers or the Internet); United States v. White, 244 F.3d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir.2001) (2-year Internet ban and violation of supervised release was only for drinking alcohol); see also United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172, 175, 185-86 (3d Cir.2010) (lifetime Internet ban and no prior supervised release violation). Also, some cases have upheld even lifetime Internet bans where the supervised release prohibited the defendant's access to the Internet without the probation officer's prior approval. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 837, 855-56 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding lifetime ban prohibiting defendant from accessing the Internet, except for employment purposes, without prior approval of probation officer); United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660, 663, 664 (8th Cir.2007) (upholding lifetime ban permitting defendant to obtain computer access only with prior written approval of probation officer); United States v. Alvarez, 478 F.3d 864, 865 (8th Cir.2007) (upholding lifetime ban prohibiting all Internet access at home and allowing access in other locations only with prior approval of probation officer). And this district court's one-year ban is far shorter than the multi-year or lifetime bans in the cases cited by Tome. For all of these reasons, and under the particular circumstances of this case, Tome has not shown the district court abused its discretion in imposing an Internet ban as a condition of his one-year supervised release.