Crombie v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

“The necessity of special conditions must be determined in reference to the statutory objectives that are repeated throughout the statutes, namely, the protection of public safety and the reformation of the offender.” Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 159, 957 P2d 1210 (1998).

Petitioner appealed after getting a special condition as part of his post-prison supervision. Petitioner assigned error to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision exceeding its statutory authority in imposing that condition. The Board issued a special condition that stated that petitioner would have no access to computing devices, like a computer or Smartphone without prior written approval of his supervising officer. The Board argued that this was necessary because Petitioner an electronic device played a role in his misconduct. Petitioner argued that his his crimes did not support a general restriction of access to the Internet and use of computers. “The necessity of special conditions must be determined in reference to the statutory objectives that are repeated throughout the statutes, namely, the protection of public safety and the reformation of the offender.” Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 159, 957 P2d 1210 (1998). The Court agreed that the this condition exceeded the statutory authority of the Board. While Petitioner did have a criminal sexual relationship with an underage girl and used a phone to communicate with her, that fact alone does not mean that it is essential for public safety that Petitioner be prohibited from having access to all electronic devices that could be used to communicate with any other person. Reversed.