State v. Forbes

Special conditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer[.]” ORS 137.540(2). “We will not hold that a probation condition is invalid simply because we can posit an alternative ‘more narrowly tailored’ condition.” State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400, 411 (2015).

Defendant pleaded guilty to property crimes and claimed he committed them to fund his underlying drug problem. At sentencing, Defendant said he was in treatment and staying clean. Defendant appealed his conviction and assigned error to a condition of his probation that required him to submit to polygraph tests at his probation officer's request. The trial court stated that the polygraph condition was appropriate because it could be used to ensure that Defendant was keeping away from drug-related activities and to assist his probation officer in obtaining honest answers about his treatment. Defendant argued that the condition was more restrictive than necessary and not reasonably related to the crime of conviction, the public’s protection, or his rehabilitation. Special conditions of probation must be “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the  probationer[.]” ORS  137.540(2). “We will not hold that a probation condition is invalid simply because we can posit an alternative ‘more narrowly tailored’ condition.” State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400, 411 (2015). The Court found that the trial court laid out its reasoning carefully and the condition was not overly restrictive, but reasonable because of Defendant’s history of drug abuse that was the underlying cause of his criminal conduct. Affirmed.