State v. Farris

A probation condition violates the Oregon Constitution if its terms are not sufficiently explicit to inform those subjects to them as to what conduct will render them in violation of the condition.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree sexual abuse and challenged a special condition of his probation prohibiting him from entering “any intimate or sexual relationship or encounter with any person without prior written permission from [his] supervising officer.” Defendant argued the condition is vague and overbroad, specifically focusing on the word “intimate.” The State argued that condition is not vague because "a person of common intelligence and the supervising probation officer would understand that the condition applies to relationships of a sexual nature." A probation condition violates the Oregon Constitution if its terms are not sufficiently explicit to inform those subjects to them as to what conduct will render them in violation of the condition. Defendant is correct, the meaning of the word “intimate” is broad but, the wording here goes on to include “intimate or sexual” relationships meaning dating, romantic, or otherwise sexual relationships. A probation officer is given sufficient guidance in determining if approval is required because the meaning is any relationship that may become sexual. The condition of Defendant’s probation is not unconstitutionally vague. Affirmed.