State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a defendant may raise a preenforcement vagueness challenge to conditions of community custody on direct appeal when the challenge is sufficiently ripe. The court concluded that Bahl’s challenges were ripe because the issues were primarily legal and withholding review could impose hardship. It further held that several conditions, including restrictions on pornographic materials, were unconstitutionally vague and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A defendant may raise a vagueness challenge to conditions of community custody for the first time on appeal.
2. A defendant may assert a preenforcement vagueness challenge to community-custody sentencing conditions when the challenge is sufficiently ripe.
3. A community-custody condition is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to give ordinary people fair warning of prohibited conduct or fails to provide ascertainable standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement; greater specificity may be required when the condition implicates First Amendment rights.
4. The condition prohibiting Bahl from possessing or accessing pornographic materials, as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, is unconstitutionally vague.
5. The condition prohibiting Bahl from frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material is not unconstitutionally vague.
6. The condition prohibiting possession or control of sexual stimulus material for Bahl's particular deviancy, as defined by the supervising officer and therapist, is unconstitutionally vague.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant may raise a vagueness challenge to community-custody sentencing conditions for the first time on appeal.
2. Whether a defendant may bring a preenforcement vagueness challenge to community-custody conditions before being accused of violating them.
3. Whether the challenged conditions prohibiting pornographic materials, frequenting businesses dealing in sexually explicit or erotic material, and possessing sexual stimulus material for a particular deviancy were unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded