## Facts

- Specialist Joshua P. Navrestad, stationed in Germany, engaged in online chats over several days with a person he believed to be a 15-year-old boy, who was actually a police detective.
- The detective requested images of “guys 10–13,” and Navrestad responded by sending a hyperlink to a publicly accessible Yahoo! Briefcase containing child pornography images.
- Trial evidence described a hyperlink as an address or shortcut that, when clicked, directs a user to a location on the internet; clicking did not transfer files to the recipient’s computer.
- The child pornography files were stored on Yahoo!’s servers, not transmitted with the hyperlink itself.
- For the possession charge, the government relied on Navrestad’s viewing of images in the Yahoo! Briefcase using a public computer, without proof that he downloaded or stored the images on media under his exclusive control.
- Navrestad was convicted at a general court-martial of distribution and possession of child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, as CPPA-based clause 3 offenses with additional clause 1 and clause 2 language added before arraignment.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals removed the CPPA reference from the possession specification due to extraterritorial timing but otherwise affirmed; CAAF granted review on the legal sufficiency of the distribution and possession convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether sending a hyperlink to an online location containing child pornography constitutes “distribution” of child pornography under Article 134 and the CPPA-based theory charged.
2. Whether viewing child pornography stored remotely in an online briefcase on a public computer constitutes “possession” of child pornography under Article 134 and the CPPA-based theory charged.

## Decision

- CAAF held the evidence legally insufficient to prove distribution because sending a hyperlink, on this record, did not transmit or transfer the child pornography files.
- CAAF held the evidence legally insufficient to prove possession because viewing remotely stored images on a public computer, without proof of dominion or control (such as downloading or storing), did not establish possession.
- The distribution and possession specifications were set aside and dismissed.
- The case was remanded for sentence reassessment in light of the dismissed specifications, while other, unchallenged Article 134 attempt convictions remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- “Distribution” of contraband requires proof of transferring or transmitting the prohibited material; merely providing an address or pointer to an online location, without transmitting the data itself, may be insufficient on the charged theory and record.
- “Possession” requires dominion or control over the contraband; transient viewing of remotely hosted images, without evidence of obtaining or maintaining a copy or otherwise exercising control, may be insufficient.
- Legal sufficiency turns on the specific proof of how digital content is accessed, stored, and transferred, including whether the accused caused the prohibited files themselves to move or to be held under the accused’s control.

## Conclusion

CAAF reversed the child pornography distribution and possession convictions because the government proved only that Navrestad sent an internet link and viewed images hosted on a remote server using a public computer, which did not establish transfer for distribution or dominion and control for possession on the facts presented.


United States v. Navrestad, 66 M.J. 262 (C.A.A.F. 2008)