The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. Blair, ruled that a special condition on the Defendant’s Internet use that was “limited to those the defendant requests to use, and which the probation officer authorizes” involved a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for deterring criminal activity because it allows the probation office to completely ban the defendant’s use of the Internet by failing to place any restraints on a probation officer’s ability to restrict a defendant’s Internet access.
Blair argued that this special condition was more restrictive “than is reasonably necessary” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2). The Court agreed.
While THE COURT STILL CAN BAN INTERNET USE, a special condition of release that gives the probation office discretion to ban completely a defendant’s use doesn’t fly because it allows the probation office the discretion to completely ban a means of communication that has become a necessary component of modern life, which is a greater deprivation than necessary.
A useful excerpt from this case is the following, “…Four years later, the role that computers and the Internet play in our everyday lives has become even more pronounced, and we expect that trend to continue. Thus, what was a reasonable restriction on Internet-use in our earlier cases may be different from what is reasonable today. We must read our prior cases in light of the evolution of the Internet and the public’s dependency on it.”
NOTE: The 10th Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
Speaking of probation departments over reach, AB 433 “probation notice to victim” in California is trying to get convicted offenders to meet the terms of their probation prior to a case being closed.
Such conditions can include registering, taking classes, and restitution.
Problem is when someone is falsely accused they get put through this one-way system without being able to fight back. So imagine being convicted of a misdemeanor “catch-all” where the requirements are lower. And the accuser lied on the stand. Furthermore, imagine they lied on the promise of their “constitutionally guaranteed” restitution. And then the case gets closed after a judge “maxes out” someone’s sentence.
So former da Mike Ramos got his buddies in the assembly last year to draft up ab 433 to fix that loophole. And the best part is that the Democrats are walking right into it for their war on Trump.
So even though Ramos lost last year due to the “blue wave” he figured out how to keep his 2008 “Marsy’s law” amendment alive. And reward alleged victims for their lies at trial with constitutionally guaranteed restitution.
https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB433/2019
Giving a glorified security guard, that is a probation officer, any role or responsibility above enforcement of court orders is in itself a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. My first PO used to show up every morning at 5 or 6 and rummage through my cabinets, look behind furniture, and in closets, all while asking me stupid things like why I wasn’t at work yet…
Yay !! This is a step in the right direction !! 🤠
Yes, Tim I agree with you as well.
In the wake of Packingham v. North Carolina, the state of TN PROACTIVELY dropped all their Internet restrictions save a prohibition against pornography where adults alter their appearance to look like children and of course pro-pedophilia web sites like boywiki, etc. This was no act of benevolence on the part of TN. Too many lawsuits have been won against these arbitrary prohibitions against computer ownership and Internet access.