Opinion ID: 2750915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Special Condition 4: Camera Ban

Text: Mr. Morrison objected to this condition at sentencing. He argued, as he does on appeal, that the ban on the use of a camera is not reasonably related to his offense conduct, criminal history, or his characteristics. “When the defendant objects to a special condition of supervised release at the time it is announced, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 691 (10th Cir. 2011). We are not persuaded the district court abused its discretion in imposing the camera ban. While it is true that Mr. Morrison did not use a camera in committing his offense, the Fifth Circuit upheld an almost identical condition of supervised release in United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 134 (5th Cir. 2011), even though the defendant had not used a camera in committing a child pornography offense. In United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit upheld a special condition of supervised release banning possession of “camera phones or other electronic devices that could be 3 Even if we were to consider the objection as forfeited, we see no error, plain or otherwise. The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that courts impose this special condition of supervised release in these circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7)(B). We upheld an identical special condition of supervised release under plain-error review in United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 987-88 (10th Cir. 2001). -14- used for covert photography” despite the fact that a camera played no role in the defendant’s conviction for receiving child pornography. The court reasoned that “[t]he large number of images stored on Blinkinsop’s computer and storage equipment make it reasonable to anticipate that, even if he has not engaged in covert photography yet, he might do so in the future.” Id. at 1123. It concluded accordingly that “the minor incursion on Blinkinsop’s liberty by this condition is not greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the public and to promote Blinkinsop’s rehabilitation.” Id. See also United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding camera ban even though no evidence the defendant used a camera in committing the offense). Here, the fact that Mr. Morrison possessed over 20,000 images of child pornography makes it reasonable to believe that he might use a camera in the future for such purposes. Mr. Morrison contends the “outright prohibition of the ownership of a camera involves a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the goals of supervised release. Aplt. Br. at 20. Significantly, however, this special condition does not completely ban Mr. Morrison from using a camera because he may do so with permission from his probation officer. See United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 481 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding identical ban on use of camera and explaining defendant was “not completely barred from possessing a camera . . . , for he may apply to the probation office for exceptions when needed”); United States v. Fields, 324 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (8th Cir. 2003) -15- (finding conditions banning internet use and “using computers as photographic equipment” subject to permission of probation officer not “greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary”). We recognized in Walser, 275 F.3d at 988, that a special condition banning internet use subject to approval of the probation office accomplished the “goal” of restricting internet use while “delicately balance[ing] the protection of the public with the goals of sentencing.” Similarly, in Miller, 665 F.3d at 133-34, the court assumed “the Probation Office will reasonably exercise its discretion by permitting [the defendant] to use the Internet when, and to the extent, the prohibition no longer serves the purposes of supervised release.” Here, the district court responded to Mr. Morrison’s objection by stating that “the court will in this case and other cases continue to make the admonition and recommendation to the U.S. Probation Office to alleviate the concerns or problems caused by that condition.” Rec., vol. II at 75. We are satisfied that a ban on cameras subject to the probation officer’s permission is not a greater deprivation of Mr. Morrison’s liberty than necessary. A sentencing court has broad discretion in fashioning special conditions of supervised release. Mike, 632 F.3d at 692; Wayne, 591 F.3d at 1331. Given the deferential abuse of discretion standard, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in banning Mr. Morrison’s use of a camera without the approval of his probation officer. -16-