Opinion ID: 76239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: restrictions on internet access

Text: 14 Taylor contends that the special condition prohibiting him from using or possessing a computer with internet access is unreasonable and overbroad. Further, he maintains that [b]ecause the court authorized [the probation officer] to search [his] computer hard drives and other applications, the probation officer could easily monitor [his] use of the computer. He concludes that this restriction fails because it is ambiguous and impinges upon his First Amendment right to use computers for legitimate purposes. 3 15 In Zinn, we addressed restrictions on internet access. Id. at 1092. In the face of Zinn's challenges that the restriction was both unconstitutionally over-broad and not reasonably related to the appropriate sentencing considerations (set forth in Section II above), we found no abuse of discretion. Id. at 1092-94. While recognizing the value of the internet for legitimate purposes, we were also cognizant of the dangers to the public when sex offenders are on-line. Id. at 1093. Here, we agree with the government that Taylor's crime was not merely enabled by the internet. In fact, he used the internet as his tool to harass his former client and to endanger her daughter by capitalizing on the internet's effectiveness as a means of reaching pedophiles. Restrictions on Taylor's internet access are undeniably related to the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 16 As to his other arguments, if Taylor has a legitimate need to use a computer after his release, the district court's order authorizes his probation officer to allow that use. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing the probation office to monitor Taylor's compliance with this condition by searching Taylor's computer hard drive and other applications, especially in light of the qualification that [t]he inspection shall be no more intrusive than necessary to insure compliance. Finally, we reject Taylor's arguments that the district court's order is ambiguous because it is not clear whether he may use a computer which is capable of being connected to the internet but is not connected, or whether he may use other technology, such as a phone or television, to access the internet.