Federal judge's order banning man from having unprotected sex is overturned
A federal judge exceeded his authority when he ordered a defendant to refrain from unprotected sex after his release from prison, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the “novel” condition of supervised release in a July 21 opinion (PDF), report the Kansas City Star and the Associated Press.
The appeals court ruled in the case of Christopher Harris, who had fathered 10 children out of wedlock by seven women. U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs of Kansas City had imposed the condition when he sentenced Harris to 15 years in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The appellate opinion upheld Harris’ prison sentence.
Sachs said in his oral ruling that Harris could not participate in any unprotected sex activities without approval of the probation office during his supervised release.
Sachs had said during the sentencing that Harris was “creating a very serious social problem” and imposed the condition over the objections of Harris and his lawyer. Sachs said he wasn’t targeting Harris and had considered similar restrictions in other cases “when there appears to be a problematic number of illegitimate children.”
Neither the probation office nor the government had recommended the ban on unprotected sex.
Sachs clarified his order in writing a week after imposing it. “The defendant shall use contraceptives before engaging in sexual activity that may otherwise cause pregnancy unless such use would violate his religious scruples or is expressly rejected by his sexual partner,” Sachs wrote.
Sachs said in a footnote that Harris “is said to offer financial support and nurturing for his illegitimate children,” but “this would not preclude addressing a general problem.”
The appeals court said it was focusing on the oral sentence, rather than the written order, because the oral pronouncement controls after a defendant has begun serving a sentence. The special condition is not related to the nature and circumstances of Harris’ offense, and does nothing to protect the public from future crimes by Harris, the court said in striking it down.
The court added that the written judgment “would of course raise similar issues.”
