United States v. Lewis
554 F.3d 208, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 1821, 2009 WL 225255 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The transmission of images over the Internet is legally tantamount to transportation in interstate commerce. Therefore, evidence that a defendant received child pornography via the Internet is sufficient, by itself, to satisfy the statutory element that the material was 'shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.'
Facts:
- Andrew Lewis downloaded ten videos containing child pornography to his home computer.
- He used his Comcast Internet connection and a peer-to-peer file-sharing application called LimeWire to obtain the videos.
- The Internet, by its nature, breaks files into data packets and routes them across a network of interconnected computers to find the most efficient path in time, not necessarily geographic distance.
- This dynamic routing process is 'wholly insensitive to geographic distinctions' and does not recognize state boundaries.
- The government's expert witness conceded during cross-examination that it was theoretically possible for a file transfer using LimeWire to occur entirely within the borders of a single state.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Lewis was indicted in a federal district court for one count of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
- At trial, Lewis objected to the government's proposed jury instruction regarding the interstate commerce element.
- The district court overruled the objection and instructed the jury that transmission over the Internet was sufficient to establish that an image moved in interstate commerce.
- During deliberations, the jury asked if an exclusively in-state internet transfer counted as interstate commerce; the court, over another objection from Lewis, answered in the affirmative.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Lewis filed a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied.
- Lewis, as the appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does proof that a defendant received child pornography by downloading it over the Internet, by itself, satisfy the statutory requirement that the material was 'shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce' under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Proof that a defendant received child pornography by downloading it over the Internet is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that the material was transported in interstate commerce. Although the statute's language 'in interstate...commerce' requires actual movement across state lines, the court is bound by its own precedent. In prior cases, specifically United States v. Carroll and United States v. Hilton, this court established that transmission of images over the Internet is 'tantamount to moving photographs across state lines.' These precedents created a rule that proof of transmission over the Internet satisfies the interstate commerce element of the offense as a matter of law. The court rejects Lewis's attempts to distinguish these cases, finding their holdings to be clear and controlling. Therefore, the government met its burden by proving Lewis used the Internet to receive the images.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a legal fiction that any data transmission over the Internet is an act in interstate commerce for the purpose of establishing federal jurisdiction under similarly worded statutes. It relieves the government of the significant technical burden of proving the specific geographic path data packets traveled, which is often impossible due to the Internet's dynamic routing protocols. The case highlights the strong influence of stare decisis, as the court followed its own precedent even while acknowledging the statutory text likely required proof of an actual border crossing. Although decided on the prior version of the law, the court noted that Congress subsequently amended the statute to the broader 'in or affecting' commerce language, effectively codifying this decision's outcome for future cases.
