Opinion ID: 3013595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overbreadth of the Internet Restriction

Text: Landry argues that the condition restricting his use of the internet and similar network-based communication systems is overly broad, as it prevents him from accessing email, news, weather, and other important information. He relies heavily on our decision in United States v. Freeman, 316 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2003), in which we found that a similar restriction “involve[d] a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter future criminal conduct and to protect the public.” Id. at 392. We noted that, because Freeman had only downloaded 9 child pornography (not to downplay the wrongfulness of such action, of course), “[t]here is no need to cut off Freeman’s access to email or benign internet usage when a more focused restriction, limited to pornography sites and images, can be enforced by unannounced inspections of material stored on Freeman’s hard drive or removable disks.” Id. We distinguished our decision in Crandon, in which a similar restriction was upheld, because “the defendant in Crandon used the internet to contact young children and solicit inappropriate sexual contact with them.” Freeman, 316 F.3d at 392. We first note that the restriction here is somewhat more narrow than that in Freeman, as Landry is not barred from using a stand-alone computer.3 Moreover, Freeman can be characterized as a case involving a simple “consumer” of child pornography, with Crandon instead concerning someone directly involved in the exploitation of children. Under that dichotomy, it is not unreasonable to place Landry in the latter category, as he not only traded in the pornographic material, but in fact created 3 It is also worth noting that the restriction here allows Landry access to the internet if he receives permission from the Probation Office. However, this fact does not distinguish this case from Freeman or Crandon, as similar allowances were made in those cases. 10 some of it. Additionally, he used the internet to acquire information that he used in his production of forged documents. We are therefore satisfied that the imposition of the internet restriction here does not constitute plain error that must be corrected.