United States of America v. Shawn Sayer
Not provided in the text (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Speech that is integral to criminal conduct, such as using online communications to engage in a course of conduct with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress, is not protected by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Shawn Sayer and Jane Doe dated until Doe ended the relationship in January 2006.
- Following the breakup, Sayer began stalking Doe in person, prompting her to obtain a state court protection order against him.
- In the fall of 2008, Sayer began using the internet to harass Doe, posting fraudulent ads on Craigslist with her pictures, home address in Maine, and a list of purported sexual acts she was willing to perform.
- As a result of these ads, numerous unknown men arrived at Doe's home seeking sexual encounters over an eight-month period, causing her to feel terrified.
- In June 2009, Doe changed her name and moved to Louisiana to escape Sayer's harassment.
- Sayer discovered Doe's new location and name, and in August 2009, he posted videos of them engaged in sexual acts on pornography websites, including her new identity and Louisiana address.
- Sayer created fake social media profiles for Doe on Facebook and MySpace, which included explicit photos, her address, and invitations for men to visit her for sex.
- The continued arrival of men at her Louisiana home caused Doe to fear for her and her family's safety, leading her to move back to Maine in November 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- Shawn Sayer was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on one count of cyberstalking and one count of identity theft.
- Sayer filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the cyberstalking charge, arguing the statute was unconstitutional on its face (overbroad and vague) and as applied to him.
- The federal district court denied Sayer's motion to dismiss.
- Sayer entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the cyberstalking count while reserving his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The government agreed to drop the identity theft charge.
- The district court sentenced Sayer to sixty months in prison, the statutory maximum.
- Sayer (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his constitutional challenge and his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 the federal cyberstalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, violate the First Amendment's free speech protections, either as applied to a defendant's course of conduct using the internet to harass a victim or on its face as unconstitutionally overbroad?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, C.J.
No. The federal cyberstalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, does not violate the First Amendment as applied to Sayer's conduct, nor is it facially overbroad. Sayer's online communications were integral to his criminal conduct and therefore fall into an established category of unprotected speech. The court reasoned that speech used as the very vehicle of a crime is not shielded by the First Amendment, citing the precedent set in Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. Sayer's actions, which included creating false online advertisements and impersonating the victim to lure potentially dangerous strangers to her home, served no lawful purpose and were solely to implement his criminal intent to harass, injure, and cause substantial emotional distress. Regarding the facial challenge, the court found the statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it targets conduct performed with serious criminal intent, not merely annoying or insulting speech. The statute's requirements of a 'course of conduct' and a specific intent 'to kill, injure, harass... or cause substantial emotional distress' sufficiently narrow its scope to its plainly legitimate purpose of preventing stalking.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the constitutionality of federal cyberstalking statutes against First Amendment challenges, providing a key precedent in the digital age. It solidifies the application of the 'speech integral to criminal conduct' doctrine to online activities, making it clear that using the internet as a tool for harassment is not protected expression. The ruling strengthens the position of prosecutors in cyberstalking cases by clarifying that the criminal intent and harmful conduct, not the medium of communication, are the central issues. Furthermore, by rejecting the overbreadth challenge, the court signals that such statutes will likely be upheld so long as they are narrowly tailored to target conduct with a specific criminal intent, rather than broadly chilling protected speech.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Shawn Sayer