United States v. Navrestad

Specialist Joshua P. Navrestad was charged under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000), with distributing and possessing child pornography in violation of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251-2260 (2000). He entered pleas of not guilty to both specifications but was convicted at trial by a military judge.1 We granted this case to determine two issues: whether sending a hyperlink to a Yahoo! Briefcase during an Internet chat session, where that Briefcase contained child pornography images, is legally sufficient to constitute distribution of child pornography; and whether utilizing a public computer to view images of child pornography in a Yahoo! Briefcase is legally sufficient to constitute possession of child pornography. We hold, under the facts of this case, that Navrestad’s actions did not constitute either distribution or possession of child pornography and therefore reverse the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on those issues.

Procedural Background

Navrestad was initially charged with distribution (Specification 4) and possession (Specification 5) of child pornography in violation of the CPPA, as “crime[s] or offense[s] not capital” under clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ. Before arraignment, however, Article 134, UCMJ, clause 1 and 2 language was added to both specifications.2 Navrestad was found guilty of both specifications as amended and was sentenced to reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, two years of confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.3

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals amended the possession specification (Specification 5) to exclude reference to the CPPA because the charged activity under that specification occurred solely in Germany and, in United States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F.2005), this court held that the CPPA does not have extraterritorial application. United States v. Navrestad, No. ARMY 20030335, slip op. at 1-2 (A.Ct.Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2006). The Army court then affirmed a finding of guilty to amended Specification 5 and the remaining findings of guilty. Id. The lower court reassessed and affirmed the sentence. Id.

Specification 5 included Article 134, UCMJ, clause 1 and 2 language prior to arraignment and the theory of those provisions was presented at trial by the prosecution. We recently held that a member can be convicted under Article 134, UCMJ, clause 1 or 2 when a clause 3 offense is set aside, if the clause 1 or 2 language has been alternatively charged. United States v. Medina, 66 M.J. 21, 28 (C.A.A.F.2008). As the Article 134, UCMJ, clause 1 and 2 language was alternatively charged in Specification 5, the Army court properly set aside the CPPA language and reviewed the specification in the context of those provisions.

*264 Factual Background

Navrestad had an account at an Internet café in a United States Army morale, welfare and recreation center in Vilseck, Germany. He would pay for a set amount of time and then use a kiosk-style computer terminal to access the Internet. While at the café, Navrestad had Internet chat sessions over the course of several days with someone who identified himself as “Adam.” Navrestad believed “Adam” was a fifteen-year-old boy from New Hampshire while actually “Adam” was Detective James F. McLaughlin, a New Hampshire police officer.

During the course of several chat sessions, Navrestad made requests for phone sex and encouraged “Adam” to engage in sex acts with “Adam’s” younger brother and a friend of “Adam’s” who was also a minor. During these sessions “Adam” made inquiries about seeking pictures, often in response to Navrestad’s requests for phone sex. Eventually, “Adam” made a specific request for pictures of “guys 10-13.”

In response to “Adam’s” request, Navrestad sought out child pornography on the Internet using the Internet café computer and located links to several Yahoo! Briefcases4 that contained child pornography. While at the Internet café, Navrestad opened and viewed the Briefcases to confirm the contents and then sent a hyperlink to one of the Briefcases that contained child pornography to “Adam.”

The websites that are viewed on the Internet café computers are automatically saved in a “temporary internet files” folder on the computer’s hard drive.5 Navrestad and other Internet café users did not have access to that folder and there is nothing in the record that indicates Navrestad was aware that the sites were being saved on the hard drive. Individuals who use the computers at the Internet café cannot download files or save documents to portable storage devices6 although they could e-mail the documents or print them on a central café printer. The printer was located in a staff-only area and users must request the printed documents from the Internet café staff. There is no evidence that Navrestad e-mailed or printed any of the images.

Discussion

Distribution of Child Pornography

We first address whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for distribution of child pornography under the CPPA. We review questions of legal sufficiency de novo as questions of law. United States v. Young, 64 M.J. 404, 407 (C.A.A.F.2007). Legal sufficiency is determined by asking “whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Dob-son, 63 M.J. 1, 21 (C.A.A.F.2006) (citation omitted). Utilizing this standard, the issue before the court is whether, under the facts of this case, sending a hyperlink that leads to a Yahoo! Briefcase which contains images of child pornography constitutes distribution of child pornography under the CPPA.

Because Specification 4 alleged a violation of the CPPA, the definitions contained in that chapter control in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8) defines child pornography as “any *265visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture ... of sexually explicit conduct, where ... the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct[.]” “Visual depiction” in turn, “includes ... data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(5).

The issue in this case centers on what was actually distributed when Navrestad sent the hyperlink to “Adam.” Navrestad argues he did not distribute child pornography because a hyperlink does not contain “data ... capable of conversion into a visual image” of child pornography. He argues that the hyperlink only contained data that is convertible to an address which, in this case, did not even take users directly to the prohibited images. The Government responds that this court should uphold the lower court because a hyperlink meets the definition of a “visual depiction” set forth in the 18 U.S.C. § 2256(5).

The initial inquiry is whether this hyperlink contains “data stored ... by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image[.]” Commencing our inquiry with a basic dictionary definition, we find that “hyperlink” is defined as “an electronic link providing direct access from one distinctively marked place in a hypertext or hypermedia document to another in the same or a different document.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged (2002), available at http://unabridged. merriam-webster.com. This definition centers on a hyperlink as an electronic link which provides access.7

David Hardinge, a senior systems administrator whose responsibilities include providing technical support for the Internet café at Vilseck, testified for the Government. During cross-examination, he defined a hyperlink as an address or a “way that you can display a web site,” which the recipient can click on to go to the particular site. Hardinge agreed that a hyperlink is a shortcut to typing in the website address manually and that clicking on it does not move any documents on the user’s computer.8 He also agreed that it was an accurate analogy to say that sending a hyperlink is like sending someone an address of a store or of a location of a building.

Hardinge further agreed that sending an individual file as an attachment to an e-mail takes longer than sending a hyperlink because, with an attachment, the user is sending a file that is moving onto someone else’s computer. He admitted that a picture is not sent to the recipient when a hyperlink is sent “[bjecause a hyperlink is nothing more than ... just a shortcut to get somewhere.” While trial counsel tried to mitigate Hardinge’s statements on re-direct, Hardinge continued to state that a hyperlink is a “direct shortcut to a location.” He did not testify at any point that the hyperlink in this case contained any images or data that were capable of conversion to images.

Unlike an e-mail attachment, the sending of a hyperlink in a chat session does not move a file or document from one location to another. As such, the data contained in the hyperlink is an electronic address that allows the recipient to direct his browser to the new location without having to type in the website of that location. The data contained in the hyperlink is not capable of conversion into any type of visual image. Rather, the data provides the recipient with the path to a website on a server distinct from Navrestad’s own computer. It is this separate server that contained the visual images of child pornography, not the hyperlink Navrestad sent. In contrast, a file received as an e-mailed attachment is self-contained and capable of conversion into an image independent of other factors. The difference between a hyper*266link and a file that is sent as an e-mailed attachment is significant because the attached picture or graphics file9 is a complete image that is just not opened yet. When that complete image is received, it is housed on the recipient’s computer.

Since the hyperlink sent by Navrestad was a path or address to a website and not a file that contains data that is “capable of being converted” into visual images, this case is distinguishable from circuit court cases that involved GIF files. See, e.g., United States v. Hockings, 129 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir.1996). In those cases, the defendants argued that GIF files were not visual depictions because the file itself was binary code and not images. Hockings, 129 F.3d at 1070; Thomas, 74 F.3d at 706. Both courts, however, concluded that GIF files are included in the statutory definition of child pornography because, as the Hookings court stated, “[t]he visual image transported in binary form starts and ends pornographically.” 129 F.3d at 1072; see also Thomas, 74 F.3d at 707. In contrast, the hyperlink here did not start or end as pornography, but was simply a shortcut to a particular web address.10

The Government also argued that once the hyperlink was sent, the recipient was “just a click away” from the child pornography images. Here the Government confuses the manner of the alleged distribution with what is allegedly being distributed. Navrestad does not dispute that he sent the hyperlink to “Adam.” His position is that the hyperlink did not contain child pornography as that term is defined in the CPPA and therefore cannot constitute the distribution of child pornography. We agree. However, even if the number of clicks were a factor in determining whether the hyperlink contained child pornography, the hyperlink in this case did not take the recipient directly to any child pornography images. When McLaughlin clicked on the link, he was taken to a directory of files and had to click on an individual file name in order to view the image.

We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has addressed a similar issue in an unpublished ease where the defendant sent a hyperlink to his own Briefcase which contained child pornography. United States v. Hair, 178 Fed.Appx. 879 (11th Cir.2006). That court determined the defendant was properly convicted of attempting to transport, and transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(1). Hair, 178 Fed.Appx. at 885. Hair is distinguishable from the instant case on several grounds: Hair was charged with both attempted transportation and transportation of child pornography, id. at 881; Navrestad was not charged with attempted distribution but only distribution of child pornography; the government in Hair also presented the transportation charge under an aiding and abetting theory, arguing that by sending the hyperlink, Hair had assisted Yahoo! in transporting child pornography, id. at 884; the Government did not present an aiding and abetting theo*267ry on Navrestad’s distribution charge;11 the hyperlink Hair sent was to his own Briefcase over which he exercised dominion and control, id. at 883; the hyperlink Navrestad sent was to a public Briefcase over which he exercised no dominion or control.12

We hold that under the facts of this case, the sending of a hyperlink to a Yahoo! Briefcase does not constitute the distribution of “child pornography” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(5) and (8).

Possession of Child Pornography

We next address whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction of possession of child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, clause 1 or 2. Both parties point to the definition of “possess” contained in the Explanation to Article 112a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 912a (2000), which deals with the possession of controlled substances:

“Possess” means to exercise control of something. Possession may be direct physical custody like holding an item is [sic] one’s hand, or it may be constructive, as in the case of a person who hides an item in a locker or car to which that person may return to retrieve it. Possession must be knowing and conscious. Possession inherently includes the power or authority to preclude control by others. It is possible, however, for more than one person to possess an item simultaneously, as when several people share control of an item.

MCM pt. IV, para. 37.c.(2). This court has also evaluated constructive possession in the drug context as having “dominion or control” over the contraband. Young, 64 M.J. at 407. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has applied that same definition to possession of child pornography, noting the absence of a definition in the CPPA. United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1204 (10th Cir.2002).

While Navrestad concedes that he viewed the images on the public computer monitor, he argues that mere viewing does not constitute sufficient control to constitute “possession.” In support of this position he argues: he could not download the images from the public computer to a portable storage device; he did not have access to any of the files stored on the computer’s hard drive; he had no control over the Yahoo! Briefcase where the images were located; and while he could have printed or e-mailed the images, there is no evidence that he did so. The Government argues that Navrestad’s actions are sufficient to constitute possession: he admittedly sought out the images on the Internet; he viewed them on the computer monitor; he had the ability to copy, print or e-mail the images to others; and, he sent a hyperlink to the Yahoo! Briefcase that contained the images to “Adam.”

The definition in MCM pt. IV, para. 37.-e.(2), provides that “[p]osses[sion] means to exercise control of something.” Navrestad viewed the images in the Yahoo! Briefcase, but his actions with the images went no further. He could not access the computer’s hard drive where the Briefcase images were automatically saved nor could he download the images to a portable storage device. There is no evidence that he e-mailed, printed or purchased copies of the images or that he was even aware that he could take any of these actions. As to what Navrestad might have been able to do with the images, “possession” is not based upon unknown contingencies but “must be knowing and conscious.” MCM pt. IV, para. 37.c.(2).

While MCM pt. IV, para. 37.c.(2), provides that “[possession inherently includes the power or authority to preclude control by others[,]” Navrestad did not have the ability to control who else would have access to the *268contents of the Briefcases he was viewing. Finally, as we have held that sending a hyperlink during a chat session to a Yahoo! Briefcase that contains child pornography does not constitute “distribution” of child pornography, the fact that Navrestad sent the hyperlink does not reflect “dominion” or “control” over the child pornography images in the Briefcase. In this context, viewing alone does not constitute “control” as that term is used in MCM pt. IV, para. 37.c.(2).

The Government relies on several federal circuit court decisions to support its argument that Navrestad’s actions in this ease constituted sufficient dominion and control over the images to constitute possession. See United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.2006); Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193. These cases involve “possession” of child pornography under the CPPA. The pivotal distinction between those eases and the instant case is that both the circuit court eases involve images of child pornography that had been saved to “temporary internet files” of the defendant’s personal computers and the defendants in both cases knew that the images were stored on their computers and had ready access to the files. Romm, 455 F.3d at 1001; Tucker, 305 F.3d at 1205. In this case the Government has agreed that while the Internet café computer saved the Yahoo! Briefcase websites to a temporary Internet file, those files were not accessible by Navrestad. In addition, there was no evidence at trial that Navrestad had any knowledge that the images were even being saved on the café computer.

We hold that under the facts of this case, Navrestad lacked the dominion and control necessary to constitute “possession” of the child pornographic images.

Conclusion

As Navrestad’s actions are legally insufficient to support a conviction for possession or distribution of child pornography, the findings of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 4 and 5 are set aside.13 The remaining findings are affirmed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for sentence reassessment.