{"id":2821,"date":"2022-02-04T16:44:36","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T22:44:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2821"},"modified":"2022-02-04T17:13:02","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T23:13:02","slug":"united-states-v-englehart-10th-cir-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/02\/04\/united-states-v-englehart-10th-cir-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Englehart (10th Cir. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States v. Englehart, No. 21-8007 (10th Cir. 2022)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Defendant-Appellant pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) and was sentenced to time served and five years of supervised release.\u00a0 The conditions of his release prohibited him from viewing sexually explicit materials.\u00a0 Defendant-Appellant violated those conditions of release on three occasions by viewing legal adult pornography.\u00a0 After a hearing, the district court amended the sexual material restriction and added additional conditions to Defendant-Appellant’s supervised release, including psychosexual evaluation and treatment and mental health treatment.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>The Tenth Circuit opinion vacated the lower court order imposing conditions of supervision, concluding that the lower court failed to make particularized findings of compelling circumstances to justify the revised Sexual Material Prohibition and failed to give even a generalized statement of reasons to justify the Mental Health Condition. In so holding the Court emphasized that even where Sexual Material Prohibitions serve a rehabilitative, deterrent or penological purpose that purpose needs to be balanced against the serious First Amendment concerns of such a restriction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n