State v. Galanes, 199 Vt. 456

Defendant (John Galanes) was placed on probation after 2009 convictions and, following prior violations, the court added Condition 45 in Aug. 2013 requiring him to inform his probation officer of the name/contact of anyone he was "planning to have a date or with whom you are planning to begin a dating, sexual or romantic relationship" before the relationship began.
In March 2014 a polygraph and subsequent admissions showed defendant had sexual contact with his housekeeper; at the revocation hearing he and the housekeeper testified the encounters were largely spontaneous and that they had been friends for years.
The State alleged a violation of Condition 45 based on at least one sexual encounter after the condition was imposed.
The trial court found a violation, reasoning that defendant should have anticipated further sexual contact given their prior intimacy and thus should have notified his officer.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that Condition 45, as written, did not give fair notice that unplanned or chance sexual contact was prohibited because the terms "sexual relationship" and "planning" were ambiguous as applied to these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Galanes)	Held
Whether Condition 45 prohibits unplanned/spontaneous sexual contact	Condition 45 requires prior notice/approval before any voluntary sexual contact; a single intercourse can constitute a "sexual relationship"	The phrase "sexual relationship" suggests more than a one-time encounter; the condition only requires notice when a relationship is planned	Reversed: condition ambiguous as applied; does not clearly prohibit a chance sexual encounter
Whether Condition 45 gave fair notice of prohibited conduct (vagueness)	The condition should be read broadly to effect the sentencing court's protective purpose; defendant should have anticipated recurrence and notified officer	The term "planning" denotes prearrangement and the condition as drafted did not fairly notify defendant that spontaneous contact would violate probation	Reversed: combination of "sexual relationship" and "planning" is ambiguous; fair-notice requirement unmet

State v. Peck, 547 A.2d 1329 (Vt. 1988) (probationers must be given fair notice of what acts violate probation)
State v. Danaher, 819 A.2d 691 (Vt. 2002) (use of plain and ordinary meaning/dictionaries in interpreting probation conditions)
State v. Waters, 87 A.3d 512 (Vt. 2013) (probation conditions must be enforced as written; courts may not rewrite conditions with hindsight)
State v. Blaise, 38 A.3d 1167 (Vt. 2012) (fair-notice principle applied to probation condition language)