Caledonia Argus

National case may have local effect in child pornography trial

Posted: 7/9/02

by Jane Palen

Managing editor

The attorney for a La Crescent man accused of possessing child pornography has challenged the constitutionality of the charges against his client.

In District Court Tuesday, July 2, Ross Phelps argued that the state statutes under which Mark Speltz, 38, of La Crescent is charged, are unconstitutional based on a ruling by the US Supreme Court in April in the case of Ashcroft vs. the Free Speech Coalition. In that case, the high court ruled that language in the original 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act which outlawed ìimages that depict obscene acts by children or what appear to be childrenî is overly broad and violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression.

Phelps told District Court Judge James Fabian the charges were the result of the La Crescent Police Department, the Houston County Sheriffís Office and the County Attorney being ìdupedî by Federal Investigators into executing a search warrant on Speltzís home.

Phelps made a point of emphasizing the dates involved in the case.

According to Phelps, the ìCandymanî investigation, which resulted in the charges against Speltz and numerous others across the country, began in January of 2001. Speltz was identified by July 31, 2001, and a search warrant was signed on March 14, 2002, to search Speltzís home. Speltz was charged on April 2, 2002. The Supreme Court ruling was handed down April 16.

ìHe (Speltz) lost his job, and was one of 3,000 people charged in a crime that the government knew would be found to be unconstitutional,î said Phelps.

The Minnesota Statute closely mirrors the Federal Statute that was the subject of the court case, Phelps noted.

County attorney Rick Jackson agreed that the language in the federal and state statutes are similar. In the Ashcroft decision, he said, the language of the Child Pornography Protection Act was found to be overbroad because it addresses images that ìare or appear to beî minors. He told the court that in the Speltz case, ìappear to beî is not the case.

Attorney Phelps submitted a written brief to the court to support his oral arguments. Attorney Jackson will review Phelpís brief and the Ashcroft case and prepare a written response by July 26. Phelps will have until August 2 to prepare a reply.

Judge Fabian granted Speltz permission to visit Bluff Siding, Wisconsin. He had previously been prohibited from leaving the state.

Top of Page