Sixth Circuit Concludes That Wholly Intrastate Activity Can Be Regulated Under The Commerce Clause Without Employing an As Applied Analysis
Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:54PM
When Congress passes a general law under its power to regulate interstate commerce, must courts examine a specific incident under that law to see if it conforms with the commerce clause (“as applied analysis”). In this case, the Defendant argued that he could not be subject to federal law involving the production and possession of child pornography because it was done within one state and was not intended for sale.
Read the opinion U.S. v. Bowers
Issue. Could the Defendant be prosecuted, under federal law, for the production and possession of child pornography, when the production and possession occurred within one state and was never intended for distribution and sale?
Background. Stephen Lee Bowers shared a home with another individual. One day, the other individual’s boyfriend was snooping in Bowers room when he came upon a book containing photographs which the individual believed to be child pornography. The FBI was contacted and they examined the book and the photographs.
Bowers waived his Miranda rights and acknowledged that the book contained photographs of him with his daughter and her friends in sexual poses. But, Bowers claimed that he took the photos for his own use and had no intention of distributing them or selling them to others. Further, Bowers claimed that he had no interest in any other “child pornography” than that involving his daughter and her friends. (I know, it is kind of a sick argument).
Bowers was convicted of production and possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2251(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B)). Bowers challenged the validity of the laws to his case because there was no proof that Bowers’s actions had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, since the laws were passed under Congress’s powers to regulate interstate trade. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Bowers argument.
Court’s Analysis. Before considering the Commerce Clause claim, the Court rejected Bowers argument that the photographs should have been suppressed because they were “discovered” by a snooping individual who then showed the photograph to authorities. Unless Bowers could demonstrate that the person snooped in his room and found the photographs at the request of authorities, there is no state action or Fourth Amendment violation.
Paul |
Post a Comment | 






