ILNews

Justices: parole conditions unenforceable, SOMM constitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court Wednesday ordered a trial court to enjoin the Indiana Parole Board from enforcing the conditions of a man’s parole that prevent him from associating with minors. But the justices denied his request to find the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring program is unconstitutional.

In 2005, David Bleeke was convicted of residential entry and attempted criminal deviate conduct related to an adult victim. He was released from incarceration in 2008 and placed on parole until 2015. Several of his parole conditions prohibited him from having contact with any children – including his own. After a legal challenge, Bleeke may now have contact with only his children.

In David Bleeke v. Bruce Lemmon, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction; Thor R. Miller, as Chairman of the Indiana Parole Board; et al., 02S05-1305-PL-364, Bleeke challenged the specific conditions restricting his access to minors as being unconstitutional, and argued that others fail to comply with certain statutory requirements. He also claimed that several of the parole statutes are facially unconstitutional in the manner by which they classify sex offenders. He also argued that the SOMM program is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him.

The Court of Appeals found that Bleeke shouldn’t be considered as an offender against children based on his attempted criminal deviate conduct conviction because the statute dictating that classification is only applicable to offenses committed after July 1, 2006. It also held the SOMM program violated Bleeke’s Fifth Amendment rights. He challenged having to sign a form that allowed a polygraph examiner to share the results of his test with a probation officer.

The justices agreed that enforcement of conditions 4,5,17,19 and 20 must be enjoined because no evidence was presented that shows Bleeke is, was, or will be a threat to children – his own or otherwise.

Regarding his SOMM challenge, Justice Steven David wrote for the unanimous court, “The question before us thus becomes whether this threat to Bleeke—answer the potentially incriminating questions or face re-incarceration—so compelled (or will compel) his answers that it violates the Fifth Amendment unless he is provided immunity. ... Regardless, we agree with those other state and federal courts applying McKune (v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24(2002)), and holding that this form of disciplinary response does not constitute a ‘penalty’ such that Bleeke would have been compelled to yield his Fifth Amendment privilege.”

“And so while he was incarcerated, the State was permitted to present Bleeke—and all SOMM inmates—with a constitutionally permissible choice: participate in the SOMM program and maintain a more favorable credit status and/or privileges within the prison system or a favorable assignment in a community transition program, or refuse to participate and instead serve out the full term for which he had been lawfully convicted,” David continued.  

The case is remanded for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT