A Florida Man appealed a condition of his sentence that included a computer ban while he is on probation. He was sentenced to lifetime probation, which means he will never be able to use a computer. He argued that the condition was unconstitutional in light of the US Supreme Court decision in Packingham. The Court, however, noted that Packingham was a restriction on social media access for someone NOT on probation. Since the ban is a condition of probation, it’s distinguished from Packingham and is allowed.
The Court found that a district court does not commit plain error by imposing a computer restriction as a special condition of supervised release, even if the term of supervised release is life.
You can read the decision here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201910678.pdf
Dano:
Smart thinking.
When I was restricted from computer use, I formed a corporation and the restriction was lifted. However, my use was for business only
Meanwhile, a so called “star” of YouTube has been posting videos of herself on Onlyfans when nude as a child in exchange for money. This is production and distribution of child porn via the internet for pecuniary gain under federal law. But it appears the feds are doing nothing about it!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/entertainment/youtube-gabi-demartino-apologizese-childhood-video-onlyfans.amp
Brandon and Maestro:
I am designing a website to deal with registration. I will be addressing lifetime probation and civil commitment as well.
I’m on lifetime probation all
Because I lived In Florida for almost 6 years. I have no desire to step foot in that backward hillbilly state and it can be sink for all I care. Florida you can kiss my ——-!!
No one should be on lifetime probation. If you’re gonna put someone on lifetime probation you may as well put them in prison for life.
Lifetime probation should NOT be a thing and should be discussed IN GREAT LENGTHS with the legislators in every state. It’s absurd. And it’s a shitty way of this “built on Christian values” country telling people that we are not worthy of that wholesome “forgiveness and redemption”.
If you read this case, you will see that this particular defendant could have been sentenced to life in prison. Instead, the judge gave him 20 years. So, lifetime probation might violate the 8th Amendment IF someone receives that punishment beyond a statutory maximum. For instance, if someone can only be sentenced to 5 years as punishment but gets lifetime supervision, then thst sentence might be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there are no such decisions from federal courts because very few life terms of probation occur.
The complainants in this case claim that the registrant initiated contact with them (both adults) and claim they posed as a child after this initial contact.
It makes more sense that the neighbors initiated contact with the registrant and conducted this “sting” to get rid of their “sex offender” neighbor.
Exactly
Jacob:
If you read the news stories about his case you get the sense that this registrant is at least mentally slow if not fully mentally challenged. He appears to have the mental capacity of a third grader. He’s not a typical recividist. There are a significant number of studies that support that mentally challenged persons wind up on the registry at higher rates and are vulnerable to these stings (and even news articles that support this, i.e., Chris Hanson’s To Catch a Predator) also they are overly represented in arrests and convictions in these stings and this does appear to be a sting by his neighbors to get rid of their “sex offender” neighbor. This appears to be a vulnerable mentally challenged registrant duped by his neighbors not a hard core “child molester” that the news stories make him out to be. The Miami Herald piece is very biased and feeds on predator panic. There is an attorney in Michigan whose autistic son was placed on the registry and has played a crucial role in bringing this aspect of the registry to the public’s attention.
Also, someone mentioned he will probably never be released. This was a federal case. He will be eligible for parole in 17 years and released from prison after 20.
This is not a case of a hardcore “child molester”. This is a sad tale of a mentally slow person duped by his neighbors to get rid of him at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 million. More proof that the registry must be abolished.
This is a story of a government that badly needs a Reset.
Main issue is that majority of people in this country hate each other and fear each other. Hence why we have so much energy behind such punishing laws and regulations, as well as highest incarceration rate.
America needs to take a hard look in the mirror. It’s turning more into a Free Jail than anything.
He used the computer to commit a crime, was convicted for it, then did so again after many years. So going forward, he will allowed to use the computer only for employment purposes.
I guess I don’t get why we would think the district court erred in imposing this restriction on this individual.
Jacob,
If a person attempted to rob someone with a knife (not killing, just rob), should that person, after prison/probation never be able to own a knife of any kind in their home to cut their food? If someone robs a convenience store, should that person never be allowed in a convenience store again?
As an independent and free thinker, I get how SOME crimes would halt a person from owning a gun which can FIRE a shot from a DISTANCE to do the damage, but I don’t get how an offense of a sexual nature such as consensual (albeit illegal) relationships with certain teens based on age of consent of the state or someone being caught in an internet sting can halt a person from ever being able to protect their home as our Constitution allows (and makes NO MENTION of conviction saying otherwise, btw).
So, I personally don’t care if the man used the same means more than once. People who have held up stores or robbed innocent people on the streets also qualify to having used the same method more than once but they’re not barred from entering shops, banks, etc.
This is a slippery slope topic for sure.
It’s actually interesting how the media changed the facts of this story. When you read the court decision and the medias representation of the facts, you can see where the media changed the facts to make the registrant look worse.
Court decisions are fairly reliable when it comes to facts. In the decision, the registrant was actually entrapped by adults posing as a child and turned the text messages over to the FBI and the FBI continued the conversation with the registrant posing as a child. The Miami Herald falsely reported that he actually solicited a child rather than an adult posing as a child. A very big difference that reveals the Miami Herald’s intentional distortion of the facts to align with the child molester stereotype. Incredibly biased news reporting. Other news stories change the facts even worse.
Nice timing as well when we are currently discussing these stings on this website.
It also appears that this person may be mentally challenged. The media clearly distorted the facts to enforce the myth that all sex offenders are monsters.
I encourage everyone to terminate their subscriptions to the Miami Herald ASAP and to boycott their advertisers for their bias. Everyone in south Florida should call out the Miami Herald for their intentional distortion of the facts.
Oh, the insanity of this life time denial of a right that should be restored. 🙏
David you’re right. Lifetime probation is bunk and unconstitutional. Probation is punishment and must come to an end to be reasonable.
The reason that these cases are being lost is because of poor preparation on the part of the attorneys arguing them. I keep trying to bring this point up but registrants keep running headfirst into the courts and are getting bad decisions.
A lot of preparation goes into successful litigation. Look at the results we are getting in Michigan. Almost all persons whose offense date predates 1995 are off of the registry in Michigan today. In the coming months almost every registrant whose offense date predates 2012 will be removed from the registry in Michigan. This is to include registrants with out of state convictions. The court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional to keep these persons on the registry. We must wait for a final order to actually remove these people from the registry. This is a years long process. After we get the pre-2012 registrants removed from the registry, we will be working on getting the remainder removed. Yes, registrants are moving to Michigan to get removed from the registry today and far more will be moving to Michigan in the future to be removed from the registry. Michigan has just recently updated it’s 406 Petition for Removal From the Sex Offender Registry to reflect persons whose offense predates 2012 are eligible for removal. You can download the 1 page petition by googling “Michigan sex offender 406”. For more than 90% of registrants whose offense date predates 2012, removal is mandatory TODAY!!! We are awaiting the court’s final order to remove these persons without requiring them to petition for removal.
We are making progress in Michigan. These registrants getting bad decisions in other jurisdictions are our single largest impediment. We are getting better organized in Michigan but our efforts are limited by the assistance we receive. We don’t need financial assistance. We are in dire need of persons capable of doing legal research.
You can do your part by volunteering to assist in the legal research. At a minimum, you should be pressuring other registrants to stop going into court unprepared and getting these bad decisions if you want to see relief in other states.
“But neither opinion addressed whether the First Amendment is violated by a special condition of supervised release for a sex offender who is serving a sentence for an offense involving electronic communications sent to a minor.”
The closing statement of the court’s ruling explains it all. He used the Internet to commit his first offense and used similar technology to commit his instant offense
He can use the computer for work but not to contact girls. That’s fine. It does not mean that OTHER registrants are subject to the same restriction he is.
Petitioners such as this one tend to defy the recidivism statistics. And I think the district court simply considered the petitioner’s history and risk level. That’s what the judge is supposed to do, right?
So has the 11th Circuit ever ruled in favor of “sex offenders”? I was not surprised they dismissed the ex post facto suit as Floriduh Statute 95.11 explains time constraints. I was surprised our attorneys didn’t know that.
They argued it’s a continuing violation. The 2018 amendment was clearly within the statute of limitations.
The penalty section of the first statute of this man’s conviction says he “shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life” under 18 USC 2422(b). So, his computer restriction while on probation is a moot question because the judge sentenced him to 20 years incarceration for a crime that carries a maximum life term. Its highly unlikely he will ever get out of prison.
#1. How is “lifetime probation” even Constitutional?? (What am I saying!? Everyone on the Florida Registry is on “Lifetime Probation”, the State just chooses to call it a civil regulatory scheme. But isn’t the result the same – one technical error and you are re-imprisoned on a felony charge.
That’s probation, isn’t it??
#2. How exactly are they going to make this work when we live in an increasingly computerized world? Already, it must be very hard to find a simple cellphone that couldn’t be considered a computer. Many calculators and wristwatches have microchips – does that make them “computers”? And a “FitBit”? And “smart TVs”, “smart speakers”, refrigerators, thermostats, ad infinitum! And soon apparel and shoes as well.
I hope it’s appealed all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary. Dump it in the Justices’ laps & see how they respond to this insanity!!!
SCOTUS only reviews cases they want to, and this would not be one they would review. This “take it all the way to the supreme court” rhetoric is folly…
The only thing about this case I do agree with is the conditions should be set on a case by case basis. Instead of arguing the unconstitutional nature of the condition, it could always be argued for removal by the court.
Dear Ben, that is a different standard on appeal called abuse of discretion. That is, whether a district Court (lower court) abused it discretion in denying a defendants request to modify conditions of probation. It is very difficult to show a court of appeals that a lower court abused its discretion.
Oh good – considering every form of media is now being delivered on a computer.
Cell phone – computer
Smart TV – computer
Registering anything – using a computer
Might as well drop him off in a deserted island at this point in time because even prisons are likely to be using computers which would require him to interact with them.
Brian, the point in this case ironically is that he can’t use the internet except for work purposes and approved by probation. Since he’s not on probation while incarcerated, he can use the internet in prison if available to him. More than one way to skin a cat.
Lest not forget, atm – computer, self checkout – computer, etc. The fact that they could even enforce something like this, just goes to show the cruelty that is the United States of America.