It’s easy to hate people who are found guilty of child pornography charges. People don’t like it when other people sexualize children
But, as the Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Inman, a district court still has to give reasons to be mean to them.
Mr. Inman pled guilty to possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison.
Like anyone else who goes to federal prison, after he is released, he’ll be on supervised release – a federal probation officer will supervise him to make sure he’s not drifting into further lawlessness.
As a part of his supervised release, he’ll have to follow certain conditions. Those conditions, as well as how long he’ll be on supervised release, are set by a judge at his sentencing hearing.
In Mr. Inman’s case, the government and Mr. Inman’s lawyer recommended that he be on supervised release for ten years.
Instead of ten years, the district court, apparently motivated by how gross Mr. Inman’s conduct is, sentenced him to a lifetime of supervised release. It didn’t explain why.
And, the district court set a number of conditions that no one asked for, or talked about at Mr. Inman’s sentencing hearing – he had to submit to mandatory drug testing; to notify the probation office if he is prescribed any medicine; to provide the probation office with all of his financial information; and he can never drink alcohol again, possess or use a device capable of creating pictures or video, or rent a storage facility or post office box.
What’s worse, the district court didn’t explain why it was imposing these conditions – it just imposed them.
As the Sixth Circuit explained, these conditions are going to seriously mess him up.
The district court . . . precluded him from using any device capable of creating pictures or video. This special condition effectively prohibits Inman for his lifetime from possessing a cell phone with photo or video capability, a video camera, or any other device capable of creating pictures or videos, even if such devices might be used appropriately in connection with employment or family activities.
So much for getting the new iPhone.
Mr. Inman can never drink alcohol again, according to the district court, even though he doesn’t have a problem with alcohol. The Sixth Circuit was troubled by this condition too.
Nothing in the record suggests that Inman has any problem with alcohol or drug dependence; yet, he is now barred from consuming alcohol for life, required to submit to periodic drug testing, and required to keep the probation office informed of any prescription medications in his possession. Supervised release conditions must be tailored to the specific case before the court. Where appropriate, the mandatory condition of drug testing “may be ameliorated or suspended by the court for any individual defendant if the defendant’s presentence report or other reliable sentencing information indicates a low risk of future substance abuse by the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(5). Moreover, the pertinent statute on discretionary conditions does not permit a total ban on alcohol, but allows a court to order the defendant to “refrain from excessive use of alcohol.” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(7) (emphasis added). Because Inman appears to present a low risk of future substance abuse, the district court should explain why these conditions of supervised release are warranted.
Finally, the Sixth Circuit thought the requirement that Mr. Inman allow his finances to be inspected by a probation officer was not supported by the record.
Inman also challenges the special condition requiring him to provide the probation office with any requested personal financial information. Inman’s crime was not financial in nature. We realize that Inman’s finances may give a probation officer insight into whether Inman is involved in illegal conduct, but we cannot approve a requirement that Inman disclose any and all financial information to the probation officer without first reviewing the district court’s explanation as to why such a condition is necessary in light of the pertinent sentencing factors.
Based on all of that, the case went back to the district court for resentencing. If a district court is going to take away someone’s ability to have an iPhone for life, that court has to do a little bit more explaining.