Colorado court of appeals says internet prohibition is constitutional
By Larry . . . It is constitutional to prohibit internet access according to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Christopher Landis appealed his probationary sentence for attempted sexual assault on a child. He argued that the conditions of his probation restricting his use of the internet and social media violate (1) the governing Colorado statutory scheme and (2) his rights to free speech under the United States and Colorado Constitutions. His suit argued that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham vs. North Carolina would make such a probationary condition unconstitutional.
The appeals court stated, “While we fully acknowledge that, to date, the internet has become one of the most important places, if not the most important place, for people to exchange views and ideas, under the circumstances here, we disagree with both of Landis’s contentions.” The court briefly recited the facts underlying Landis’ conviction. “According to the affidavit of probable cause for arrest, Landis sexually assaulted his stepdaughter when she was ten years old. The evidence included his admission to police that he touched the victim’s vagina and breasts. In a negotiated pea, Landis pleaded guilty to one count of attempted sexual assault on a child. The parties stipulated to a sentence to probation.
At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor agreed with the recommendation in the presentence investigation report, that the court sentence Landis to sex offender intensive supervision probation (SOISP) and require him to comply with (1) the standard “Additional Conditions of Probation for Adult Sex Offenders” (the standard conditions) and (2) the recommendations in the sex offense specific evaluation (SOSE). The court sentenced Landis to seven years of SOISP. As for the two standard conditions restricting use of the internet and social media, the court required Landis to comply with those conditions but modified them to allow for such use required by his employment at the electronics installation company.
Landis argued that he should not be required to comply with the two standard conditions prohibiting use of the internet and social media without prior approval from his probation officer. He emphasized that he is required to use the internet in his ongoing employment at an electronics installation company. He also argued that the conditions violate his constitutional rights based on Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) which invalidated a statute creating a new felony offense for violation of post-custodial restrictions on sex offender access to social media.
The court emphasized that probation is an alternative to prison and is intended to be rehabilitative Opinion at 4. Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 18-1.3-204(2) lists the various conditions of probation that a district court may impose, which includes a catchall for “any other conditions reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation and the purposes of probation.” The court relied on People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315, 1319 (Colo. 1997). The court stated, “We conclude from our evaluation of the five Brockelman factors that the probation conditions at issue restricting Landis’s use of the internet and social media are reasonably related to his rehabilitation and the purposes of probation. First, the conditions are reasonably related to Landis’s underlying offense. To be sure, Landis did not use the internet in attempting to sexually assault his stepdaughter. However, he engaged in sexual conduct with a child, and it was reasonable to place restrictions on Landis’s use of a medium that easily can be used to facilitate contact with children.” According to the SOSE, objective testing indicated that Landis’s highest sexual interest is toward juvenile females. It also concluded that he was in high denial regarding his offense. The SOSE recommended that he be “monitored carefully while in the community” and “not have contact with [the victim] or with anyone younger than 18.”
The Supreme Court specifically pointed out in Packingham that “of importance” to the Court was “ . . . the troubling fact that the [North Carolina] law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.” The Supreme Court repeated the same point soon after, concluding that “It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences.”
The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that Packingham is distinguishable on that basis. Unlike the defendant in Packingham, Landis is quite obviously still serving his probationary sentence for a sex-related offense. They went on to say, “As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Knights, “Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers ‘do not enjoy “the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled” ’ ” Opinion at 13. Finally, the Court said that there are ample alternatives. “The probation conditions at issue still leave ample channels of communication for Landis to engage in everyday life. For example, Landis may still communicate in person, communicate over the telephone, receive news from television and newspapers, and write to his government representatives” Opinion at 18.
The man is on court ordered probation via sentence and he never had a viable case to begin with. No different than the moron complainer in Connecticut DPS demanding procedural process he had already ” intelligently ” dismissed away by signing the states standard waiver of civil rights.
What is more interesting is the case when the person is done with their sentence but is still required ( ex post) to register combined with same registrant serving a probation sentence for failure to register. Does the probation dept. have the prohibitive authority in that peculiar scenario to limit internet use?. If the answer is Yes, than it must be affirmative restraint based upon the 1st sex case and not based on the failure to register behavior. I am 7-1 in FTR cases against me and I indeed found myself in that exact scenario when i lost at trial and got 3yr. probation sentence. They (WiDOC ), tried to prohibit me from having pornographic material and accessible internet, but to no avail because I pushed the matter up the ladder of DOC using their own sticks. There was infact an intelligible reason why SCOTUS in Connecticut DPS made mention of the potential substantive 14th amendment claim in case that made no mention of it in complaint by plaintiff. The intelligible reason becomes readily apparent in the context of FTR trial and aftermath. These factors are also the inevitable natural outcomes from congressional choice to engage the use of ex post language in statute making applied to statutory enumerated crimes
The probation and registry requirements for a sex offender are hate crimes. Purposely targeting an individual for failure, for life. Racism legally inflicted. I’m 60, have a job, bike for a vehicle and 40 hrs wk. Its not gonna reach. Doomed to fail, go homeless, be arrested and off to prison for non compliance. I find no help and the clock is ticking.
Sounds to me like you are your own best friend. You’ll find it cathartic to confront these people via the propper channels. Hey, if it perfectly acceptable behavior for SOR compliance task force personal to come to your house\property unannounced to confront you even when registered then that sword cuts both ways. You should have seen the look on the face of the WISOR agent who have found me camped on the sidewalk in front of his home at 6:30 a.m.! I’m sat in a lawn chair w\ thermos of coffee and waited. I assure you he was more than upset. I said ” I’m breaking no law” when he threatened to call the cops. He didn’t call, but his wife did, so here they come. Two squad cars show up, but so what i wasn’t breaking the law, just having coffee in a public place. Some of the neighbors began to take notice. The wife is saying ” …my kids…. ” and the agent has the Sgt off by the garage explaining and I’m still sitting in my chair having coffee. The cops discuss something about an ordinance for obstructing a public sidewalk, a offense usually pertaining to parked vehicles w\ 15$ fine, but I wasn’t a parked car. Then it was “creating a nuisance” but sitting in a lawn chair isn’t creating a real confluence of people, nor possible threat to persons. They attempted to question me about what i was doing, how I’d gotten there, where was my car, and how long I intended to stay. I told the cops I’d be going soon anyway. because i had almost finished my thermos and needed to pee. It was told I was free to go, but I’d be reported “to my agent or whoever” and not to come back. I looked at the agent and his wife and said, “Next time I’ll knock on the door.” All four of them stood there dumbfounded as I folded up my lawn chair and walked away.