United States Eighth Circuit

In the government's appeal from the district court's order holding that it would be unconstitutional to impose a curfew and electronic monitoring system under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act on defendant following his indictment for child pornography possession, the order is reversed where defendant's facial challenge failed because he could not establish that there were no child pornography defendants for whom a curfew or electronic monitoring was appropriate.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/18/2010
• Published 02/18/2010

Judges

• RILEY, Circuit Judge., Before RILEY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Mark Tremmel, AUSA, argued, of Sioux City, IA, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael L. Smart, AFPD, argued, of Sioux City, IA, for appellee.