Court Opinion

ID: 9837011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:59.599664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.820863
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm this case. Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 USC § 2252 (1994), as follows:
CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134
SPECIFICATION 1:
In that AIRMAN FIRST CLASS SCOTT E. FALK, United States Air Force, 60th Aircraft Generation Squadron, did, at Travis Air Force Base, California, on or about 5 June 1996, knowingly possess three or more pictures which contain a visual depiction the production of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct, on land or a building owned by or otherwise under the control of the Government of the United States, to wit: 9 Vandenberg Court, Travis Air Force Base, California, in violation of 18 USC § 2252. [Emphasis added.]
He agreed to the following stipulation of fact concerning this charge:
MJ: 14. On or about 3 June 1996, SSgt Nash interviewed Stacey Falk, the Accused’s wife, pursuant to an investigation he was conducting. During the course of that interview, Mrs. Falk informed SSgt Nash that her husband had child pornography on his computer which was located in their home at 9 Vandenberg Court. With the exception of Mrs. Falk playing Solitaire on the computer, A1C Falk exclusive*393ly used the computer. SSgt Nash obtained a search authorization to seize and search the computer and Special Agent Timothy Hanners, a Computer Crime Investigator with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, subsequently searched the contents of the Accused’s personal computer.
15. AlC Falk had hundreds of photographic images stored on his computer. He neatly categorized these images into directories on his computer labeled “Children,” “Preteen,” “Weird,” and “XXX.” On or about 5 June 1996, AlC Falk possessed 126 photographic images depicting child pornography, most of which were stored on his computer under the directory “Preteen.” Many of these images graphically depicted children engaged in sexually explicit conduct including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and masturbation. The remainder of the images depicted the genitals or pubic areas of the children in a lascivious manner. AlC Falk knew that he had these images in his possession and he knew that they depicted children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
16. Prosecution Exhibit 3 consists of hard copies of the photographic images depicting child pornography which were downloaded from the Accused’s computer. Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Boos, a pediatrician assigned to the ... David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base, has reviewed the photographic images contained in Prosecution Exhibit 3 and confirmed that all depict children under the age of 18 years. Dr. Boos estimates that the images depict children ranging in age from approximately six years through approximately sixteen years.
Now, are all those previous paragraphs true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief, and do you wish to admit that they are true?
ACC: Yes, Your Honor.
Finally, appellant explained his offense to the military judge as part of the guilty plea inquiry. He stated:
With regard to Charge I, Specification 1,1 downloaded some pictures off the Internet after gaining access. When sorting through these files I determined that I did possess child pornography which I then filed away into their respective directories.
(Emphasis added.)
I disagree with the majority opinion for several reasons. See generally United States v. Harrison, 26 MJ 474, 476 (CMA 1988) (post-trial speculation as to facts supporting offense not countenanced). First, appellant pleaded guilty and admitted violating 18 USC § 2252 (1994), as charged. He specifically admitted his possession of 126 computer files of child pornography; his organization of the files containing these pictures into four different directories on his computer; and that his conduct in government housing violated 18 USC 2252(a)(4)(B) (“knowingly possess 3 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which contain any visual depiction____involv[ing] the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”). A conviction in similar circumstances under this same statutory provision was upheld in United States v. Hockings, 129 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.1997) (eight computer files). In my view, a computer picture stored in a file on a hard drive is in a container for visual depictions under 18 USC § 2252 (“other matter which contain any visual depiction”). A computer has the capacity to contain a full library of books and pictures stored in the files of its hard drive.
In addition, assuming appellant’s admitted conduct of possessing these computer pictures did not violate 18 USC 2252(a)(4)(B) (1994), it clearly violated another subsection of that same statute, subsection (a)(2). This subsection had no multiple container requirement. It states that any person who
(2) knowingly receives, or distributes any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by an means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or through the mails, if—
*394(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
shall be punished under the statute. (Emphasis added).
Here again, appellant admitted to the military judge:
With regard to Charge I, Specification 1, I downloaded some pictures off the Internet after gaming access. When sorting through these files I determined that I did possess child pornography which I then filed away into their respective directories.
Affirmance of his conviction based on his guilty-plea admissions to a closely related offense is permitted under United States v. Felty, 12 MJ 438, 441-42 (CMA 1982); see generally Art. 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a).
Finally, even if appellant’s admitted conduct did not violate any subsection of 18 USC § 2252 (1994), I would still affirm his conviction under Article 134, UCMJ, 10 USC § 934. Possession of 126 computer images of child pornography, lasciviously organized into four directories on a personal computer, in government housing on a military post, is per se service discrediting conduct in my view. Affirmance of his conviction for this conduct under Article 134 is warranted, even if no civilian offense was established. See United States v. Gallegos, 41 MJ 446 (1995) (manifest example of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline affirmed as offense under Article 134, despite failure to constitute civilian offense).