State v. Gallo, 365 P.3d 1154

Defendant (32) used the internet and a social networking site posing as a 15‑year‑old to befriend and then sexually abuse a 16‑year‑old autistic girl; pleaded guilty to second‑degree sexual abuse.
At sentencing court imposed the “Tech Sex Offender Package,” including a special probation condition banning use of email, social networking, file‑sharing, chatting software, or any other web site without prior approval of the probation officer for three years.
Defendant challenged the internet ban as overbroad and unduly restrictive because internet use was, he argued, incidental to the sexual abuse.
Trial court rejected the challenge; defendant appealed arguing the condition was more restrictive than necessary (relying principally on federal child‑pornography cases).
Court of Appeals reviewed whether the condition was authorized by ORS 137.540(2) and supported by the record, and affirmed the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a probation condition banning internet use without probation officer approval is authorized and reasonably related to goals of probation	State: Internet ban is reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection because defendant used internet to pose as a teen and initiate contact with the victim	Defendant: Ban is overbroad; internet use was incidental to the sexual abuse and a total ban unduly restricts liberty and modern life	Court: Affirmed — ban was reasonably related to goals of probation, supported by record, limited in duration and subject to probation officer approval
Whether Oregon law requires a less‑restrictive‑means analysis before imposing such conditions	State: No such requirement under Oregon precedent; narrower tailoring not dispositive	Defendant: Court should require narrower tailoring as in some federal cases	Court: No — Oregon does not require a less‑restrictive‑means test; discretion is broad though conditions must be record‑supported

State v. Phillips, 206 Or App 90 (discussing review of sentencing conditions)
State v. Johnston, 176 Or App 418 (broad discretion to impose probation conditions)
State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100 (probation conditions and discretion)
State v. McCollister, 210 Or App 1 (conditions must be supported by record)
State v. Donahue, 243 Or App 520 (conditions cannot be more restrictive than necessary is not alone dispositive)
State v. Martin, 282 Or 583 (limitations when conditions implicate constitutional rights)
State v. Kline, 155 Or App 96 (no requirement of less‑restrictive‑means analysis)
State v. Sprague, 52 Or App 1063 (probation conditions for public protection and reformation)
State v. Maack, 270 Or App 400 (upholding total internet ban as reasonably related to probation goals)
U.S. v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (Second Circuit invalidated an absolute internet ban as greater than reasonably necessary)
U.S. v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (Ninth Circuit upheld internet restriction with probation officer discretion)
U.S. v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (Fifth Circuit upheld restriction and rejected requirement of investigating less restrictive options)
U.S. v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit upheld lifetime internet ban where internet use was integral to victimizing minors)