Here is a link to CAAF”s decision in United States v. Bowersox, 12-0398/AR (Apr. 2, 2013). I am sure Zee will correct my technical errors, but here is the substance of Judge Ryan’s opinion, from which only Judge Stucky dissented:
First, we hold that § 1466A(b)(1) applies to Appellant’s conduct because the statute expressly provides that the minors depicted need not actually exist. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(c) (“It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.”). Second, § 1466A(b)(1) is constitutional as applied to Appellant because the statute requires that the proscribed visual depiction be obscene, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1)(B) (“is obscene”), and the limited holding of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 568 (1969), which recognized an individual’s right to possess obscene materials “in the privacy of his own home,” does not extend to Appellant’s possession of obscene materials in his shared barracks room. For these reasons, the decision of the ACCA is affirmed.
The shared barracks room concept seems to be somewhat problematic and possibly too broad given that the material was password protected. Does an officer have the right to possess said materials in a non-shared BOQ room? If the enlisted soldier has no roommate and the computer is password protected (or not)?