State v. T. Johnson, 533 P.3d 335

Defendant Timothy Johnson pled guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent involving a minor; underlying conduct included texting and Snapchat communications with the victim.
PSI and psychosexual evaluation recommended Level II sex-offender designation and multiple probation conditions; PSI proposed Conditions 35, 36, and 42 restricting internet and electronic-device access and allowing device inspections, monitoring software, and bans on encryption.
At sentencing the District Court imposed those technology-related conditions over defense objection; Johnson was sentenced to 12 years with 6 years suspended.
Defense objected that a blanket internet/device ban was overbroad (citing Packingham) and that monitoring and password/access requirements would be sufficient; the State argued the restrictions had a nexus to the offense and Johnson’s sex-offender status.
The Montana Supreme Court found monitoring, inspections, bans on encryption, password disclosure, and app-specific bans (e.g., Snapchat) reasonable, but held that a complete prohibition on internet access or device possession without prior permission was overly broad and could impede rehabilitation (employment, education).
Court reversed and remanded for the District Court to amend Conditions 35 and 36 to allow monitored, necessary internet/device use; Condition 42 (cell phone) must be conformed rather than entirely stricken.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by imposing conditions that prohibit internet access and possession of certain electronic devices without prior permission	Nexus exists: offense involved electronic communications with a minor; Level II registration warrants broad restrictions; access can be allowed with permission	Blanket ban is overbroad and unconstitutional (citing Packingham); monitoring, password disclosure, and bans on encryption suffice; full ban hinders employment/rehab	Reversed and remanded: blanket prohibitions were overly broad; targeted monitoring, inspections, bans on encryption and specified app prohibitions are reasonable; amend Conditions 35 & 36; modify 42 to conform

State v. Melton, 364 Mont. 482, 276 P.3d 900 (2012) (requires nexus between probation condition and offense/offender)
State v. Coleman, 393 Mont. 375, 431 P.3d 26 (2018) (overly broad or unduly punitive conditions are unreasonable)
City of Billings v. Barth, 387 Mont. 32, 390 P.3d 951 (2017) (standard for reviewing legality of sentence conditions)
State v. Conley, 391 Mont. 164, 415 P.3d 473 (2018) (probation aims: rehabilitation and community protection)
State v. Nauman, 376 Mont. 326, 334 P.3d 368 (2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing conditions)