OUnited States v. Ownby

Defendant's Use of Computer to Trade Child Pornography Over Internet Results in Forfeiture of Home

Taken from Law & the Internet, Significant Decisions Concerning the Internet, The New York Law Journal Sept.30, 1996.

Forfeiture of a home appraised at $358,000, and in which the defendant-homeowner had equity of more than $88,000, as in personam criminal forfeiture to punish the defendant for using his in-home computer to trade child pornography on the Internet, does not violate the Excessive Fines

Clause of the Eighth Amendment, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia ruled in May 1996.

Senior District Judge James Harry Michael Jr., in United States v. Ownby, 926 F.Supp. 558, held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines does not bar the forfeiture of the defendant's residence in this case because the forfeiture did not exceed the maximum statutory fine authorized for the defendant's offense; the forfeiture did not exceed the maximum fine allowed under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; and the forfeiture was not excessive in light of the defendant's conduct and the offense committed.

The defendant came to the attention of the FBI during a nationwide investigation conducted by that agency into trading child pornography on the computer bulletin services of America On-Line. The defendant repeatedly accessed America On-Line to send and receive, by computer, images depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 USC §2552. The court stated that, in analyzing excessive fine claims under the Eighth Amendment in cases of in personam criminal forfeitures, the inquiry involves a comparison of the value of the property being forfeited to the gravity of the offense committed by the defendant and the nature and extent of the defendant's activities. Since the defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts under §2552, he faced a potential statutory fine of $750,000 and, under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court could have imposed a total fine exceeding $131,000.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the forfeiture was excessive, because the relevant statute and the fine scheme established by the Guidelines explicitly empowered the court to impose a total fine well in excess of the defendant's $88,737 equity interest. In considering the amount of the forfeiture in light of the defendant's conduct and the offense committed, the court concluded that the evidence convincingly demonstrated that the defendant's level of culpability was profound and that a harsh penalty was warranted, given the more than 1,000 transmissions extending over a substantial period of time and the defendant's extensive trading of sexually exploitative images.


Hacking | Credit card fraud | Cracking & Computer network break-ins | Software piracy | Child pornography | Virus dissemination |

In the News | Meet Attorney Kyros | Home

Website designed by K. William Kyros and Lawyerviews.com