Sex offender wins right to view legal adult porn

A man convicted for obscene webcam conduct shared with someone posing as a 13-year-old girl nearly a decade ago may view legal pornography, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a three-way opinion Thursday.

Jeffrey P. Taylor appealed special probation conditions that included a ban on legal porn.

“We agree with him that the record does not support a ban on viewing legal adult pornography. Adult pornography did not facilitate or lead to Taylor’s offense here, and there is no evidence or finding that viewing otherwise legal pornography would increase the likelihood he would recidivate,” Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote for the majority in United States of America v. Jeffrey P. Taylor, 14-3790.

“In light of his use of his computer to attempt to contact a young teenage girl, however, we affirm the imposition of a condition that requires Taylor to make his internet-capable devices available for inspection, even without any reasonable suspicion that he has committed a new crime. Finally, we agree with Taylor that the special conditions as currently worded contain an overly broad complete ban on knowing contact with minors,” the majority held.

Taylor lived in Logansport in 2006 when he made contact in an Internet chat room with someone using a screen profile of “Ellie,” claiming to be a 13-year-old living in Lafayette. “Ellie” was a persona created by authorities working on a federal-state sting targeting child sex offenders.

Taylor was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, but the conviction previously was overturned, and he was convicted of the lesser federal charge of transferring obscene materials to minors. By that time, he had already served the maximum prison sentence under that offense and he initiated this appeal of special conditions of probation.

Williams’ opinion vacates Taylor’s sentence and remands to the District Court for adjustment of the probationary special conditions that she noted are set to soon expire.

Judge David Hamilton concurred in part but dissented to vacating the pornography condition. "I see no abuse of discretion here,” he wrote. “I am not persuaded that Taylor had a right to have the district court start over from scratch on whether the condition should be imposed at all. When it was imposed in 2012, there was no objection or appeal. While the district court had the power to revisit the question, I do not see a duty to do so, except to the extent the terms of the condition were sharpened to comply with our intervening case law.

“Neither [United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 2014)] nor this offender’s motion required the district judge to revisit on the offender’s demand the question whether to impose any restriction at all on his access to adult pornography.”   

Judge Frank Easterbrook concurred with the majority but wrote separately on jurisdictional issues, noting the District Court did have jurisdiction to proceed with modifying terms of probation, but in this case it did so while his appeal was pending. “(T)hat was imprudent,” Easterbrook wrote. “(P)arallel litigation adds needless complication.” He said a review of intra-circuit conflict on these jurisdiction issues is warranted.