State v. Melton, 2012 MT 84

Melton pleaded guilty to failing to provide notice of change of residence under SVORA; two-year DOC commitment with all time suspended.
Condition 14 barred contact with anyone under 18 except his own children unless accompanied by a trained adult approved by probation and the sexual offender treatment provider.
Condition 15 barred Melton from frequenting places where children congregate unless accompanied by a trained adult and with prior permission from his probation officer.
Dr. Scolatti recommended prohibiting unsupervised contact with any female children under 18 due to Melton's risk profile and treatment motivation concerns.
Melton objected to Condition 15 as overly broad and burdensome on his relationship with his children and travel freedoms; the District Court declined to add an exception for his own children.
Court affirmed the district court, concluding Condition 15 is reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection and not unduly punitive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Condition 15 overbroad or unduly punitive?	Melton: lacks sufficient nexus to rehabilitation; overly burdens rights.	State: condition tied to rehab and public safety with appropriate nexus.	Not overbroad or unduly punitive; nexus exists.
Does an offense nexus exist to support the restriction based on the 1999 offense?	Melton: stale, unrelated to current SVORA sentence; cannot justify.	State: offender nexus justified by history and treatment needs.	There is an offender nexus; history supports the restriction.
Should an exception be allowed for accompanying Melton's own children without a chaperone?	Melton: exception is necessary for family relationships and travel rights.	State: no exception; risk to other children remains.	No exception; condition remains with chaperone and approval requirement.

State v. Hafner, 358 Mont. 137 (2010 MT 233) (restrictive sentencing conditions reviewed for nexus and reasonableness)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187 (2008 MT 83) (limits on conditions tied to rehabilitation and protection of society)
State v. Zimmerman, 355 Mont. 286 (2010 MT 44) (broad discretion but requires nexus and reasonable scope)
State v. Muhammad, 309 Mont. 1 (2002 MT 47) (unreasonable or overly broad probation conditions scrutinized)
State v. Malloy, 325 Mont. 86 (2004 MT 377) (recidivism history supports restrictive probation for protection)
State v. Rowe, 351 Mont. 334 (2009 MT 225) (affirming contact restrictions with minors under supervision)
State v. Brinson, 351 Mont. 136 (2009 MT 200) (supervised contact with underage individuals upheld under certain conditions)
State v. Johnson, 362 Mont. 473 (2011 MT 286) (relief from restrictive conditions possible if treatment goals shift)