United States v. Schultz, No. 15-3787 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe district court sentenced defendant to 22 months imprisonment to be followed by 1 year of supervised release, imposing three special conditions of supervised release. Special Condition 4 prohibits defendant from owning or having pornographic materials, Special Condition 5 allows a probation officer to search or monitor his computer and electronic devices, and Special Condition 6 prohibits defendant from having contact with any children under the age of 18 without prior written consent of the probation officer. The court concluded that Special Condition 4 is appropriately tailored to defendant's circumstances in light of his original sex offense and the district court's finding of a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards minors; Special Condition 5 is reasonably necessary to monitor whether defendant is violating the pornography restriction and to monitor whether defendant is violating the restriction concerning his contact with minors; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing Special Condition 6 where the district court made individualized findings, including adding language directing supervised visitation to defendant's biological and legally adopted children. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - supervised release conditions. District court did not plainly err in prohibiting defendant from owning or possessing pornographic materials or entering place where materials can be obtained or viewed based on defendant's pattern of inappropriate behavior towards minors or plainly err in allowing probation office to search or monitor computer and electronic devices. Restrictions were reasonably necessary based on prior noncompliance. The court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting contact with minor children without written consent from the probation officer based on history of prior sexual abuse and violations of no-contact orders. The district court made individualized findings and narrowly tailored the restriction to address his family situation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.