Third Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Special Conditions of Supervised Release in Child Pornography Case

In a recent appellate decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the sentence of Paul R. Thielemann, imposing a term of imprisonment followed by a ten-year term of supervised release, subject to special conditions. Thielemann pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography and was subsequently sentenced to the statutory maximum, 240 months imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The Court conditioned Thielemann’s supervised release on two special restrictions; for the term of supervised release, Thielemann is 1) restricted from owning or operating a personal computer with internet access in home or at any other location, including employment, without written approval of the probation officer, and 2) he is restricted from possessing or viewing any materials, including pictures, photographs, books, writings, drawings, or video games depicting and/or describing sexually explicit conduct.

Thielemann appealed his sentence on the basis of special conditions imposed on his supervised release. Specifically, District Courts may impose special conditions of supervised release, but such conditions must be reasonably related to the factors set forth in the statutory sentencing guidelines, and must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter future crime, protect the public, and rehabilitate the defendant. The Third Circuit examined the relevant facts of the case under this standard and determined the special conditions were merited. Those relevant facts involved Thielemann’s usage of child pornography and sexual abuse of minors, to entice heterosexual males into sexual activity with him. This commingling of adult and child sexual conduct was sufficient to merit the special conditions imposed on Thielemann.

The Court began by examining the ban on sexually explicit material, as weighed against Thielemann’s First Amendment Constitutional rights. The Court cited to United States v. Voelker, where Defendant’s similar lifetime ban on possession of sexually explicit material was overturned due to a lack of nexus between the special condition and the crime committed. In Voelker, Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography, but nothing in the record suggested that sexually explicit material involving adults contributed in any way to the offense. Contrarily, the Court found overwhelming evidence in the record of the case at hand to conclude that Thielemann’s exposure to sexual material will contribute to future offenses by Thielemann. The Court held the restriction not to be overbroad or vague, and therefore not a violation of Thielemann’s First Amendment rights.

The Court then considered the ban on computers with internet access. The Court noted the importance of computer usage in today’s society, but also explained that Thielemann is not banned from owning a personal computer, but merely from accessing the internet. Further, the ban on internet access expires after ten years of supervised release; in Voelker, a lifetime ban on internet access was found not to be narrowly tailored and contained no exceptions. Unlike the ban in Voelker, Thielemann may obtain permission from his probation officer should the need arise to access the internet for specific purposes. Finding a nexus between the special conditions of supervised release imposed and the aspects of the offense committed, the Court found no Constitutional violations and upheld Thielemann’s sentence.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.