Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 00-4497
COUNSEL
Ronnie M. Mitchell, Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Michelle L. Treadwell,
MITCHELL, BREWER, RICHARDSON, ADAMS, BURNS &
BOUGHMAN, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice
McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
William Henry White appeals his conviction after a jury trial of
knowing possession of three or more images of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 1998) (current version at 18 U.S.C.A. 2252A (West 2000)). White asserts that
the statute is unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Eighth
Amendments and the Commerce Clause. He also contends that the
evidence was insufficient to convict him. We affirm.
I.
First, White contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that
2252A(a)(5)(B) and 18 U.S.C.A. 2256(8)(B) (West Supp. 1998),
violate the First Amendment because the Governments interest in
combating the use of images that "appear[ ] to be" children is not
compelling and because those sections are impermissibly vague and
overbroad. We rejected these arguments in United States v. Mento,
231 F.3d 912 (4th Cir. 2000). White therefore is not entitled to relief
on these grounds.
White also alleges that his privacy rights under the First Amendment have been violated. We find that his reliance on Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), is misplaced. White was not prosecuted for
merely possessing in his home photographs depicting child pornography. Rather, the Government charged him with, and the jury convicted him of, knowing possession of child pornography that was
transported in interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court consistently has rejected constitutional protection for obscene material
outside the home, we find that Whites privacy claim fails. See
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 108-10 (1990) (citing New York v.
Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-58 (1982)); United States v. Orito, 413
U.S. 139, 140-42 (1973) (collecting cases).