State of Washington v. Gil Salgado Velazquez, Jr., 34713-3

On Feb. 23, 2016, 13-year-old M.M. and another shopper, Connie Sisco, reported that Gil Salgado Velazquez made unwanted, sexual contact with them while shopping at Walmart.
Police reviewed store video showing Velazquez contacting multiple female shoppers; both victims identified conduct as offensive/sexual.
Velazquez was charged with second-degree child molestation (or attempted) as to M.M. and fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation as to Sisco; a jury convicted him of second-degree child molestation and fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation.
The court imposed standard-range prison terms plus 36 months of community custody with conditions including: (1) no pornographic materials, (2) do not frequent places where children congregate (with examples: parks, playgrounds, schools), and (3) no internet/email/social media access.
On appeal Velazquez challenged all three community custody conditions as not crime-related, vague, or violating his First Amendment religious rights; the State conceded two of the challenges and defended the congregating restriction.

Issue	Velazquez's Argument (Plaintiff)	State's Argument (Defendant)	Held
1. Condition prohibiting purchase/possession/viewing of pornographic material	Not crime-related and unconstitutionally vague	Condition is proper	Stricken (State conceded; court accepted concession)
2. Condition banning internet/email/social media access	Not crime-related	Condition is proper	Stricken (State conceded; court accepted concession)
3. Condition barring frequenting places where children congregate (examples listed) — vagueness and free-exercise challenge	Vague, could be overbroad; interferes with ability to worship and not narrowly tailored	Proper, tailored by illustrative list and enforceable	Mostly upheld; court found not unconstitutionally vague after construing terms, ordered clarification to add “under 16” after “children”; does not bar adult worship attendance

State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App.) (vagueness of a CCO-defined "areas where minor children are known to congregate")
State v. Sanchez-Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (Wash.) (vagueness review applies to community custody conditions)
State v. Magana, 197 Wn. App. 189 (Wash. Ct. App.) (due process vagueness standards for conditions: fair warning and protection from arbitrary enforcement)
State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (Wash.) (standards for avoiding arbitrary enforcement in criminal/vague-law context)
State v. Cordero, 170 Wn. App. 351 (Wash. Ct. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing community custody conditions)