295 P.3d 409
Alaska Ct. App.2013Background
- Dioree III was convicted of unlawful exploitation of a minor for surreptitiously filming his stepdaughter in her bedroom.
- He was sentenced to probation with multiple special conditions challenged on appeal.
- Special conditions include polygraph exams, no contact with the victim or family, completion of Department-approved programs, disclosure of criminal history to household members, avoidance of child-oriented organizations, and restrictions on sexually explicit material and Internet use.
- Dioree admitted to single count of unlawful sexual exploitation and two aggravating factors at sentencing.
- The court affirmed most conditions as related to rehabilitation and public protection, but remanded to revise the definition of “sexually explicit material” for constitutionally adequate notice.
- The concurrence emphasizes that the phrase “sexually explicit material” is flawed and should be revised on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the polygraph requirement is reasonably related and compliant with self-incrimination protections. | Dioree contends polygraphs are not related to rehabilitation and could incriminate him. | State argues the polygraph statute promotes rehabilitation and public safety; privilege against self-incrimination is not triggered. | Not squarely decided; not at issue since polygraph results were not compelled or admitted in evidence. |
| Whether no-contact with the victim/family improperly restricts other household relationships. | Dioree claims the rule unnecessarily restricts contact with his other daughter. | Restriction is narrowly tailored to protect the public and is consistent with divorce/custody orders. | Upheld as properly tailored and justified to protect the public and minimize risk. |
| Whether the definition of “sexually explicit material” is vague or overbroad and requires revision. | Dioree argues the term is vague and overly broad, including adult pornography. | State argues material is tied to rehabilitation; a broad prohibition is allowable but must be defined. | Remand required to revise Special Conditions 18, 14, and 15 to provide constitutionally adequate notice. |
| Whether Internet-access restriction is reasonable or should be subject to officer discretion. | Dioree argues Internet ban is overbroad and nonessential to his crime. | statute allows Internet restrictions with probation officer discretion for necessary access. | Upheld as reasonable with officer discretion to allow necessary use for rehabilitation. |
| Whether other Department-approved programs condition is overbroad in delegation of discretion. | Dioree argues excessive discretion to the probation officer. | Authority is limited by statute and by enumerated program types; related to offense/rehabilitation. | Constitutionally acceptable as properly related and bounded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235 (Alaska 1977) (probation restrictions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection)
- James v. State, 754 P.2d 1336 (Alaska App. 1988) (review of probation conditions and related restrictions)
- Hinson v. State, 199 P.3d 1166 (Alaska App. 2008) (limits on probation conditions involving minors and public protection)