State v. Maack, 348 P.3d 265

Defendant pled guilty in 2002 to three felony sex crimes and received concurrent probation terms: two 10-year terms and one 5-year term.
In 2012, probation was revoked on Count 2 for violating an Internet-use prohibition, and the revocation was appealed on theory the internet ban was invalid.
The court imposed a special probation package (sex offender package) prohibiting contact with minors without approval, forbidding pornography, and requiring participation in treatment.
Defendant completed residential treatment (2002–2004) and then faced multiple violations through 2010, leading to continued supervision and eventual sanctions.
In 2010–2012, probation officer Nagel imposed a complete ban on Internet use due to concerns about reoffending risk, including exposure to minor-related online activity.
The probation-revocation court revoked probation after finding the Internet ban imposed by Nagel was violated by defendant’s online activity and contact via social media.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Internet ban was reasonably related to probation goals.	State argues the ban was reasonably related to public protection and rehabilitation.	Don’t see sufficient relation; a total ban is excessive.	Yes; the ban was reasonably related and not impermissibly overbroad.
Whether defendant could challenge the probation condition in a revocation proceeding as a collateral attack.	State contends the issue was appropriately raised in revocation.	Collateral challenge allowed because the condition was imposed by a probation officer later rather than at sentencing.	The challenge was properly before the court in the revocation proceeding.
Whether the same reasonably related standard applies to conditions imposed by probation officers rather than by courts.	State assumes the standard applies.	Not necessary to decide here.	Assumed for purposes of the appeal; standard governs evaluation of officer-imposed conditions.

State v. Gaskill, 250 Or App 100 (2012) (probation conditions must be reasonably related; strict relevance required but not impossible alternatives)
State v. Miller, 224 Or App 642 (2008) (revocation context; consequences of probation conditions relate to errors of law)
State v. Donahue, 243 Or App 520 (2011) (restrictions tied to rehabilitation may be upheld if reasonably related)
State v. Qualey, 138 Or App 74 (1995) (invalid if no connection to the offense; but not required to choose the most narrowly tailored remedy)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Rial, 181 Or App 249 (2002) (collateral challenges to probation orders often barred; exceptions for lack of opportunity to challenge)
State v. Nearing, 78 Or App 72 (1986) (collateral attack restrictions; direct challenge preferred)
State v. Hovater, 37 Or App 557 (1978) (status of probation conditions in revocation context)
State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461 (1989) (affirmative steps toward behavior change can justify probation conditions)
State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461 (1989) (affirmative steps toward behavior change can justify probation conditions)
State v. Donahue, 243 Or App 520 (2011) (limits on proximity to high vice areas as rehabilitation)