Sentencing – Supervised release – conditions

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing – Supervised release – conditions

Conditions of lifetime supervised release that the defendant possess no sexually stimulating material and have no contact with minors are overbroad and must be vacated.

“The government concedes, and we agree, that a limited remand is appropriate so that the district court can on remand narrowly tailor these conditions. First, on remand the court should clarify what materials are ‘sexually stimulating’ for Benhoff and narrow the scope of proscribed conduct so as not to block his access to protected speech. See, e.g., United States v. Siegel,—F.3d—, 2014 WL 2210762, *6–7 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Shannon, 743 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176, 194 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511, 524–25 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 262–64 (3d Cir. 2001); but see United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 226–27 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Hobbs, 710 F.3d 850, 855 (8th Cir. 2013); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 619–20 (9th Cir. 2003). Second, the district court should explain why a no-contact ban for minors is necessary in Benhoff’s case so as not to involve a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. See United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796, 802 (7th Cir. 2014); Goodwin, 717 F.3d at 524; United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 154–55 (3d Cir. 2007).”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated and Remanded in part.

13-2369 U.S. v. Benhoff

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text