State v. Bostwick, 103 A.3d 476

Defendant, convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, was sentenced to three to fifteen years with most suspended but six months.
Special probation conditions banned living near places with children and required residence only as directed by the Supervising Officer, with written approval needed to change residence.
State filed a probation-violation complaint alleging failure to reside where directed, but the court dismissed as impossibility of performance during incarceration.
Upon release, Defendant resided temporarily at various approved locations; in July 2012 he lived at Budget Inn, deemed temporary because near children.
Probation officer pressured daily housing searches and set an August 1, 2012 deadline; Defendant, with limited income and internet ban, conducted approximately seventy housing inquiries via calls and wife’s emails, announcing probation status to landlords.
Trial court found violations of both probation conditions and revoked probation, leading to this appeal by Defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the condition to reside where directed was properly interpreted	State	Rivers prohibits shifting from plain-language conditions	Yes; plain language not violated; officer exceeded by adding search rules
Whether Budget Inn proximity to a playground violated the condition on living near children	State	Budget Inn rendered near-children proximity unconstitutional under the condition	No; reversal on officer-implementation of first condition makes second moot
Whether the probation-violation finding was supported given notice and modification concerns	State	Conditions improperly modified by probation officer; lack of notice	Reversed for improper modification and lack of notice; not necessary to reach broader questions
Whether the court should defer to probation officer’s interpretation under Austin/Moses/Freeman line	State	Court should construe conditions narrowly	Yes; court should avoid improper delegation and maintain judicial role
Whether the decision preserves judicial discretion vs. over-flexible vagueness	State	Too rigid rules undermine discretion	Court should maintain discretion; avoid micromanagement of conditions

State v. Rivers, 178 Vt. 180 (2005 VT 65) (probation condition implementation cannot improperly delegate to officer)
State v. Moses, 159 Vt. 294 (1992) (no wholesale delegation of probation-condition setting to officer)
State v. Freeman, 193 Vt. 454 (2013 VT 25) (reinforces limits on officer-imposed condition modification)
State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389 (1996) (facial challenges to conditions at sentencing; procedural limits at VOP)
State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205 (1990) (due process requires notice of prohibited conduct; protection against arbitrary power)