Wayne L. Patton v. State of Indiana, 990 N.E.2d 511

Patton was convicted of a class D felony child seduction arising from an incident with his sixteen-year-old daughter in a van.
He was sentenced to probation with special sex-offender rules including a restriction on certain internet use and the prohibition on websites, chat rooms, and instant messaging programs frequented by children.
Patton challenged the probation condition as overly broad, vague, and a First Amendment infringement.
The trial court noted broad discretion in probation conditions and that the condition targeted online activity involving children.
Patton failed to object at sentencing, creating a waiver issue, but the court proceeded to evaluate the constitutionality and specificity of the restriction.
Indiana Code § 35-38-2-2.2(4) authorizes such restrictions as a condition of probation for sex offenders, and the court analyzed the balancing factors for First Amendment challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the internet restriction a valid probation condition?	Patton: restriction is vague/overbroad and infringes First Amendment rights.	State: restriction is tailored to prevent contact with minors and is constitutional.	Yes; restriction reasonably related to protecting the public and preventing contact with minors.
Was there waiver of objection to the probation condition?	Patton preserved issue by objection at sentencing.	Patton waived by failing to object at sentencing; arguments on appeal are waived.	Waiver; nonetheless, analysis supports the condition.

Doe v. Marion County Prosecutor, 705 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2013) (probation terms may be tailored but must be narrowly tailored to risk)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (probation restrictions may impinge rights when serving probation goals)
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internet restrictions may be reasonable without being vague)
McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (three-factor test for evaluating constitutional impact of probation terms)
Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (vagueness in probation terms assessed by notice of proscribed conduct)
Hunter v. State, 883 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind. 2008) (probation conditions must describe proscribed conduct with adequate clarity)
Gordy v. State, 674 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court has broad discretion in setting probation terms)
Purdy v. State, 708 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (probation rights do not entitle ordinary citizens to full freedoms)
McCloud v. State, 452 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (conditions must be rationally related to rehabilitative goals)
United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2003) (internet restrictions can be protective and related to law enforcement needs)