Bleeke v. Lemmon
2014 Ind. LEXIS 317
| Ind. | 2014Background
- David Bleeke was convicted in 2005 of residential entry and attempted criminal deviate conduct (victim an adult), sentenced to 10 years, released to parole in 2009 with required participation in Indiana’s SOMM (sex-offender) program.
- Standard parole form (State Form 49108) imposed: mandatory SOMM treatment (must admit guilt to complete), periodic polygraphs including sexual-history exams, and broad conditions restricting contact/association with children (including his own), residency near parks/schools, and limits on intimate relationships without approval.
- Bleeke refused to sign a polygraph waiver in 2008, was jailed briefly for noncompliance, later signed and took a polygraph but continued to maintain innocence; providers said he could not complete SOMM unless he admitted guilt.
- Federal court required an individualized assessment before restricting access to his children; Parole Board held a hearing but nevertheless reimposed the standard conditions; Bleeke sued in state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on due process, equal protection, vagueness/overbreadth, and Fifth Amendment grounds.
- Trial court enjoined enforcement of family-contact conditions; Court of Appeals found several conditions/statutes overbroad or inapplicable and held SOMM forced self-incrimination. Indiana Supreme Court (this opinion) affirms parts of the Court of Appeals, reverses others, and upholds SOMM against Fifth Amendment challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Bleeke's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parole conditions barring contact/association with children (Conditions 4,5,17,19,20) | No evidence he poses risk to minors; conditions not reasonably related to reintegration and unduly restrict familial association | Conditions are prophylactic, reasonably related to protect public safety and rehabilitation | Conditions 4,5,17,19,20 enjoined as not reasonably related to Bleeke’s reintegration given record showing no risk to children |
| Vagueness/overbreadth of certain conditions (Conditions 8,15,17,19) | Language unclear; parolee cannot know what conduct triggers revocation | Conditions are necessary tools to prevent recidivism | Court summarily affirms appellate ruling that Conditions 8,15,17,19 are impermissible without clarification; enjoin enforcement of 8 and 15 until clarified |
| Statutory classification and residency/employment restrictions (Ind. Code §§ 35‑42‑4‑11; 11‑13‑3‑4(g)) | Facial challenge: statutes label persons "offender against children" and impose severe stigma/restrictions even where crimes were against adults | Statutes serve legitimate regulatory goals; some provisions may not apply retroactively | Court summarily affirms Court of Appeals: statute §35‑42‑4‑11 does not apply to Bleeke; related parole statutory application overbroad as applied; enjoin enforcement to extent derived from that labeling |
| SOMM program and compelled self-incrimination (mandatory admissions and polygraphs without immunity) | SOMM forces admissions and sexual-history disclosures under threat of parole violation — violates Fifth Amendment privilege | SOMM is legitimate rehabilitative program; parole/credit consequences do not constitute unconstitutional compulsion; protections and process exist | Court holds SOMM does not violate Fifth Amendment as applied to Bleeke: participation offers a constitutionally permissible choice and parole-revocation/credit consequences do not amount to unconstitutional compulsion |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (probation conditions analyzed in sentencing/probation context)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (probationer’s statements and Fifth Amendment compulsion analysis)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (plurality analyzing compelled self-incrimination in prison sex-offender treatment programs)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1973) (Fifth Amendment privilege extends beyond trial to official questioning where answers might incriminate)
- Gilfillen v. State, 582 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1991) (probation cannot be revoked for continued denial of guilt when court conditions would require admission)
- Jackson v. State, 816 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (upholding probation conditions limiting contact with minors where tied to offense facts)