From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bausch

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 25, 1998
140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998)

Summary

finding that the subjects in the photographs were fifteen and sixteen-year-old girls, and the pictures were being used by the defendant in their absence and perhaps for commercial purposes

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Corp.

Opinion

No. 97-3072MN

Submitted February 10, 1998

Decided March 25, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Virginia G. Villa, of Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Appellant.

Richard Newberry, of Minneapolis, MN, argued, for Appellee.

Before FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.


Using a camera made in Japan, James Donald Bausch took pictures of two girls, aged fifteen and sixteen, depicting "the girls in nude poses including exposed genitals, sexually suggestive scenes, and scenes simulating oral sex." (Presentence Report at 1.) The girls were models for Bausch's drawings, and Bausch used the photographs in the girls' absence. After the grandmother of one of the girls called the authorities, Bausch was convicted of possessing three or more photographs of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (4)(B) (1994), which includes both actual or simulated oral sex, see id. § 2256(2)(A), and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," id. § 2256(2)(E). The district court sentenced Bausch to probation. Bausch appeals his conviction, challenging the constitutionality of § 2252(a)(4)(B). We reject Bausch's Commerce Clause and First Amendment arguments and affirm.

Bausch first contends Congress exceeded its authority to regulate commerce among the States when it enacted § 2252(a)(4)(B), making intrastate possession of child pornography a federal crime. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 3. According to Bausch, Congress lacks power to regulate the possession of sexually explicit photographs of minors when the photographs have not traveled in interstate commerce and are not intended to be placed in commerce. We review the constitutionality of the statute de novo. See United States v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397, 1400 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 341 (1997).

The Commerce Clause gives Congress power to regulate three types of activity: (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59 (1995). Section 2252(a)(4)(B) is a proper exercise of Congress's commerce power under the third category. See United States v. Robinson, No. 97-1523, 1998 WL 78807, at *4 (1st Cir. Mar. 2, 1998).

Section 2252(a)(4)(B) prohibits the knowing possession of three or more "books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which contain any visual depiction [of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct] . . . that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported . . . ."

The statute contains an express jurisdictional element requiring the transport in interstate or foreign commerce of the visual depictions or the materials used to produce them. See Robinson, 1998 WL 78807, at *4; see also United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 749 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1547 (1996). Thus, the statute ensures, through a case-by-case inquiry, that each defendant's pornography possession affected interstate commerce. See Robinson, 1998 WL 78807, at *4; see also Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561. In this case, the jury found Bausch took the photographs using a Japanese camera that had been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. See Robinson, 1998 WL 78807, at *1 (use of camera and film made in another state satisfies Commerce Clause). We conclude § 2252(a)(4)(B) is not beyond Congress's commerce power, and thus is not facially unconstitutional. See id.

Bausch next asserts § 2252(a)(4)(B) violates the First Amendment as applied in his case. Because he possessed the photographs for artistic purposes, Bausch argues the statute should be narrowly construed to exclude him from its reach. See United States v. Lamb, 945 F. Supp. 441, 449 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). Bausch did not raise his First Amendment claim in the district court, so we can reverse his conviction on this ground only on a showing of plain error. See United States v. White, 890 F.2d 1033, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Baucum, 80 F.3d 539, 541 n. 2 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 204 (1996); United States v. McKenzie, 99 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir. 1996).

It is questionable whether Bausch's photographs are works with redeeming artistic value. See United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 84 (1994) (material covered by § 2252 is not the artistic, but "hard-core pornography") (Scalia, J., dissenting). Bausch does not assert the photographs themselves are art, and their value as an aid to create artwork is more limited and remote than art itself. In any event, we doubt the First Amendment protects the possession of photographs showing minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in § 2256 even if the photographs have redeeming artistic value.

We are aware the First Amendment protects nonobscene, sexually explicit material involving adults, see X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. at 72, and sexually explicit material involving adults is not obscene if it has serious artistic value, see Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). When sexually explicit material depicts minors, however, the First Amendment offers less protection. See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-64 (1982). The government has greater leeway to regulate child pornography because the government has a "more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children." Id. at 761; see United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733, 749-50 (3d Cir. 1994). Thus, the Supreme Court has held a statute prohibiting the production and distribution of materials showing minors engaged in "`actual or simulated sexual intercourse . . . or lewd exhibition of the genitals'" is not facially overbroad. See Ferber, 458 U.S. at 765 (quoting statute). In so holding, the Court said any overbreadth "should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied." Id. at 773-74. Nevertheless, the Court cast considerable doubt on the viability of an as-applied challenge like the one in this case. The Court observed, "The value of permitting . . . photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis," id. at 762, and "if it were necessary for . . . artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized," id. at 763. The Court stressed that even if some child pornography has artistic value, the material's artistic value is irrelevant to the victimized child. See id. at 761. In her concurrence, Justice O'Connor went further, suggesting "the Constitution might in fact permit [the government] to ban knowing distribution of works depicting minors engaged in explicit sexual conduct, regardless of the social value of the depictions." Id. at 774. On the other hand, three other Justices said the First Amendment protects artistic, sexually explicit depictions of children. See id. at 776 (Brennan and Marshall, JJ., concurring), 778 (Stephens, J., concurring). And in a more recent case, the Court upheld a statute that prohibited mere possession of material showing a nude minor when the minor's nudity is "a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals," see Osborn v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 113 (1990), but the statute contained an exception for material possessed for legitimate artistic purposes, see id. at 106.

We need not resolve any general issue today. Because it is unclear that application of § 2252(b)(4)(B) to Bausch violated the First Amendment, the district court's failure to address the First Amendment issue on its own accord is not plain error.

We thus affirm the district court.


Summaries of

United States v. Bausch

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mar 25, 1998
140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998)

finding that the subjects in the photographs were fifteen and sixteen-year-old girls, and the pictures were being used by the defendant in their absence and perhaps for commercial purposes

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Corp.

finding the use of a Japanese camera to take photographs of child pornography affected interstate commerce

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Dunlap

upholding a conviction for intrastate noncommercial possession of child pornography solely on the basis of § 2252(B)'s identical jurisdictional element

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Smith

upholding conviction under § 2252(B) where the defendant used a camera that had been manufactured in Japan and transported in interstate commerce to take sexually explicit photographs of minors

Summary of this case from U.S. v. FADL

upholding the constitutionality of § 2252(B) when the defendant used a Japanese camera that had been transported in interstate commerce to take photographs of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct

Summary of this case from U.S. v. FADL

deciding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(B), which criminalizes possession of 3 or more visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity, is not beyond Congress's commerce power, because it contains an express jurisdictional element requiring transport in interstate and foreign commerce of visual depictions or materials used to produce depictions

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Perez-Carrillo

affirming a conviction for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and rejecting defendant's claim that his prosecution was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Betcher

affirming constitutionality of statute in case where defendant took photographs using a Japanese camera that had been previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce

Summary of this case from United States v. Pfoff

affirming constitutionality of statute in case where defendant took photographs using a Japanese camera that had been previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce

Summary of this case from United States v. Pfoff

In United States v. Bausch, 140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998), we affirmed a conviction for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Mugan

In United States v. Bausch, 140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998), we affirmed a conviction for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Mugan

stating that "the statute ensures, through a case-by-case inquiry, that each defendant's pornography possession affected interstate commerce"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. McCoy

In United States v. Bausch, 140 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1072, 119 S.Ct. 806, 142 L.Ed.2d 667 (1999), the defendant was convicted under § 2252(a)(4)(B) based on his possession of pictures of two girls, ages fifteen and sixteen, depicting the girls in nude poses and sexual acts.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Corp.

refusing to find plain error where defendant failed to raise at trial his alleged First Amendment defense that he possessed child pornography as an aid to create artwork, and observing that the Ferber Court "cast considerable doubt on the viability of an as-applied challenge like the one in this case"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Matthews

In Bausch the Defendant was an artist that took some child pornography pictures of 15 and 16 year old girls with the pictures to be used later by the defendant to create artwork.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Flynn

stating that § 2252(B) ensures that each defendant's pornography possession affected interstate commerce on a case-by-case basis

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Matthews

stating that the First Amendment protects nonobscene, sexually explicit material involving adults

Summary of this case from State v. Botsford
Case details for

United States v. Bausch

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Appellee, v. James Donald Bausch, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Mar 25, 1998

Citations

140 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. McCoy

Specifically, in cases involving prosecutions under § 2252(a)(4)(B), the government has asserted that the…

U.S. v. Corp.

The district court denied Corp's motion on the grounds that the language in the statutes covering possession…