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

  • What of wrongfully convicted?
    What becomes of a person who maintains his innocence throughout the trial, who is nevertheless found guilty, who does his time and who SOMM then "requires them to take responsibility for their offenses" by admitting their guilt? How is that any different than someone signing a confession under coercion or duress? Because if the wrongfully convicted party refuses to admit his guilt, he will continue in prison for the full length of his sentence, a longer term than guilty parties who complete their SOMM requirements. How is that justice?

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT