{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-11","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e0b409","proof":"sha256:0a12593eedaa9898e18a21ee48b6d8903c2fec8f22cb1f6f9ea61bdda05f0f48","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"NOTICE: SLIP OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(not the court’s final written decision)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8"]},{"title":"(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the","paragraphs":["para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13"]},{"title":"The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it","paragraphs":["para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19"]},{"title":"For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see","paragraphs":["para_22"]},{"title":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In the Matter of the Personal Restraint","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26","para_27"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"DIVISION ONE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"PUBLISHED OPINION","paragraphs":["para_31","para_32"]},{"title":"Indeterminate Sentence Review Board upon his release. He argues that the","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36"]},{"title":"FACTS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In February 2016, Canter responded to an online personal ad on Craigslist","paragraphs":["para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/2","paragraphs":["para_46"]},{"title":"Canter waived his right to a jury trial and instead proceeded to a stipulated","paragraphs":["para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52"]},{"title":"4.2 to the J&S. The requirements in appendix 4.2 include the following: condition","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"18 prohibits Canter’s use of “computer chat rooms”; condition 20 requires that if","paragraphs":["para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"21 prohibits Canter from accessing the Internet from any device without first","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60"]},{"title":"In November 2022, while Canter was serving his prison term, the End of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Sentence Review Committee rated him as having a “low risk” of recidivism. The","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) held a hearing on Canter’s","paragraphs":["para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"You must not access the Internet without developing a signed Board","paragraphs":["para_70"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/3","paragraphs":["para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77"]},{"title":"A copy of the signed Board Electronic Device Inventory and Internet","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Search Requirement form must be provided to the ISRB. The signed","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81"]},{"title":"DOC assigned Kimberly Young as Canter’s community corrections officer","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(CCO) in April 2023. After his release from prison, Canter completed the ISRB’s","paragraphs":["para_84","para_85"]},{"title":"You will install any special software on your device that is required","paragraphs":["para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90"]},{"title":"Canter complied and installed monitoring software called “Accountable2You”","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(A2U) in May 2023. Canter later asserted in briefing to this court that Young told","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95"]},{"title":"CCO Stefanie Watt explained in a declaration prepared for this personal","paragraphs":["para_97","para_98","para_99"]},{"title":"The trigger words are preset on Accountable2You’s software.” Watt’s declaration","paragraphs":["para_101"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/4","paragraphs":["para_103"]},{"title":"CCO received a weekly e-mail containing his activities that were flagged and","paragraphs":["para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"The material from A2U’s website that Hines provided in his declaration","paragraphs":["para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125"]},{"title":"3 A2U defines a partner as “the person who receives reports and alerts containing activity","paragraphs":["para_127"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/5","paragraphs":["para_129"]},{"title":"In June 2023, Canter, as a self-represented litigant, brought a motion in","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Snohomish County Superior Court to “clarify or modify” a number of the community","paragraphs":["para_132","para_133"]},{"title":"Young had construed the prohibition on “computer chat rooms” to mean that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Canter “may not have access [to] or use any social media, instant messaging","paragraphs":["para_136"]},{"title":"Veterans Administration [(VA)4], medical institutions, financial institutions, or work","paragraphs":["para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"4 We interpret Canter’s use of “Veteran’s Administration” in his motion as a reference to","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/6","paragraphs":["para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164"]},{"title":"However, the court also reiterated that the ISRB has the authority to impose","paragraphs":["para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"In August 2023, Canter provided Young with a copy of the court’s","paragraphs":["para_171"]},{"title":"Canter’s own interpretation of the order. He later sent a copy of the order directly","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"The intent of this provision [allowing DOC monitoring of Canter’s devices that","paragraphs":["para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/7","paragraphs":["para_189"]},{"title":"ISRB e-mailed Canter and advised him that “the [ISRB] has determined that they","paragraphs":["para_191","para_192","para_193"]},{"title":"In September 2023, Canter filed a motion to compel the ISRB and DOC to","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196","para_197"]},{"title":"DOC asserted that it could not “be a party to this criminal action” and the trial court","paragraphs":["para_199","para_200"]},{"title":"DOC that the motion should be transferred to the Court of Appeals as a PRP, and","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"Chief Judge of this division issued an order referring the petition to a panel and","paragraphs":["para_205"]},{"title":"That same month, Canter’s supervision was transferred to Watt. Watt","paragraphs":["para_207"]},{"title":"(NFCU) applications on his phone. In September, Canter’s supervision was again","paragraphs":["para_209","para_210","para_211"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/8","paragraphs":["para_213"]},{"title":"November 25, asking for permission to use social media and video conferencing","paragraphs":["para_215"]},{"title":"In March 2025, DOC brought a second motion to supplement the record","paragraphs":["para_217"]},{"title":"Ng’s second declaration asserted that he had approved further changes to","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Canter’s monitoring and detailed them. Ng explained that he had permitted Canter","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228"]},{"title":"Canter moved to supplement the record the day before oral argument in this","paragraphs":["para_230","para_231"]},{"title":"Canter to add her e-mail address to A2U’s list of excluded trigger words, she","paragraphs":["para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/9","paragraphs":["para_239"]},{"title":"DOC did not object to Canter’s motion to supplement and the panel granted his","paragraphs":["para_241"]},{"title":"ANALYSIS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I. Standard of Review for PRPs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To prevail on a PRP, the petitioner must prove that they are currently","paragraphs":["para_245"]},{"title":"Wn.2d 881, 883-84, 232 P.3d 1091 (2010); RAP 16.4(a)-(c). As relevant here, a","paragraphs":["para_247","para_248","para_249"]},{"title":"Restraint of Winton, 196 Wn.2d 270, 274-75, 474 P.3d 532 (2020). Canter is","paragraphs":["para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254"]},{"title":"The petitioner carries the burden in a PRP to prove by a preponderance of","paragraphs":["para_256"]},{"title":"1, 26, 558 P.3d 451 (2024). In order to obtain relief, Canter must establish that his","paragraphs":["para_258"]},{"title":"The restraint is unlawful if it is “in violation of the Constitution of the United States","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/10","paragraphs":["para_265"]},{"title":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277 ([T]he imposition of an unconstitutional condition would","paragraphs":["para_267"]},{"title":"Conditions imposed by the ISRB are reviewed for abuse of discretion;","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"1 Wn.3d at 892. Recently, in State v. Johnson, our State Supreme Court","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276"]},{"title":"II. Mootness","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"As a threshold matter, we acknowledge the various modifications Ng","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280","para_281"]},{"title":"2d 569, 577, 546 P.3d 86 (2024). However, we may review an issue that is","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284"]},{"title":"This court has previously explained that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Washington courts consider three factors when determining","paragraphs":["para_287","para_288","para_289"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/11","paragraphs":["para_291","para_292","para_293"]},{"title":"State v. Gelinas, 15 Wn. App. 2d 484, 488, 478 P.3d 638 (2020). In his","paragraphs":["para_295"]},{"title":"Court have repeatedly held that the proper interpretation of statutes and rules","paragraphs":["para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300"]},{"title":"The ISRB offers no response to Canter’s preemptive arguments regarding","paragraphs":["para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307"]},{"title":"III. Constitutionality of DOC Enforcement of Internet-Related Conditions","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The ISRB has statutory authority to impose additional community custody","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/12","paragraphs":["para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319"]},{"title":"However, the respective authority of the ISRB and DOC is not without","paragraphs":["para_321","para_322","para_323"]},{"title":"Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 32, 195 P.3d 940 (2008). While our state’s highest court","paragraphs":["para_325"]},{"title":"Warren, it subsequently explained in Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277, that though such","paragraphs":["para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Nguyen13] applies . . . to community custody conditions imposed by the ISRB.”","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277-78. The ISRB abuses its discretion if it imposes","paragraphs":["para_332","para_333"]},{"title":"Canter’s overarching claim is that the ISRB, through DOC, has failed, in its","paragraphs":["para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/13","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343"]},{"title":"Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of our state","paragraphs":["para_345"]},{"title":"Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the boundaries of his","paragraphs":["para_347","para_348","para_349"]},{"title":"A. Right To Privacy","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Constitution of the United States protects against unreasonable search","paragraphs":["para_352","para_353","para_354"]},{"title":"However, for persons subject to supervision by DOC, some degree of","paragraphs":["para_356"]},{"title":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 275; State v. Balles, 32 Wn. App. 2d 356, 365, 556 P.3d 698","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2024) (explaining supervisees “do not enjoy the same constitutional privacy","paragraphs":["para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362"]},{"title":"DOC may limit a supervisee’s right to privacy only insofar as required by the","paragraphs":["para_364","para_365"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/14","paragraphs":["para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372"]},{"title":"1. A2U Monitoring Is a Constant Suspicionless Search","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Individuals subject to government supervision, like community custody, are","paragraphs":["para_375"]},{"title":"State v. Cornwell, 190 Wn.2d 296, 301, 412 P.3d 1265 (2018). A CCO does not","paragraphs":["para_377","para_378"]},{"title":"9.94A.631(1). However, the law “permits a warrantless search of the property of","paragraphs":["para_380","para_381"]},{"title":"Supreme Court has explained that the nexus is required because to allow","paragraphs":["para_383","para_384","para_385"]},{"title":"399 P.3d 1141 (2017)). It further held that a supervisee’s privacy rights may be","paragraphs":["para_387"]},{"title":"14 While the court in Cornwell at times used the term “probation,” the facts of that case","paragraphs":["para_389","para_390"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/15","paragraphs":["para_392","para_393","para_394"]},{"title":"Canter was convicted of sex offenses and will be on community custody","paragraphs":["para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403"]},{"title":"The facts underlying Canter’s crimes of conviction do not require monitoring","paragraphs":["para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410"]},{"title":"DOC did not initially offer any articulable standard, such as reasonable","paragraphs":["para_412"]},{"title":"Canter’s otherwise private information either. In fact, Young, Canter’s CCO at the","paragraphs":["para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/16","paragraphs":["para_417"]},{"title":"Canter to limit the setting to “Alerts,” according to A2U, that simply means that the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CCO would only receive reports flagging potentially problematic activity. It does","paragraphs":["para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423"]},{"title":"CCO infringes on even the reduced rights of a supervisee, particularly where there","paragraphs":["para_425","para_426"]},{"title":"At oral argument before this court, DOC contended, and Canter did not","paragraphs":["para_428"]},{"title":"That is, only the person in control of the device may change the level of monitoring;","paragraphs":["para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435"]},{"title":"2. A2U Captures Protected Privileged Communications","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"As initially configured, the CCO’s monitoring of Canter’s Internet activity","paragraphs":["para_438","para_439","para_440"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/17","paragraphs":["para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462"]},{"title":"Young required a setting that provided her with reports that included surveillance","paragraphs":["para_464","para_465"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/18","paragraphs":["para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470"]},{"title":"The same is effectively true as to Canter’s privileged communications with","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478"]},{"title":"CONST. amend. VI. This necessarily “includes the right to confer privately with that","paragraphs":["para_480","para_481"]},{"title":"Wn.3d 1010 (2023). The right “is violated when the State intrudes into a privileged","paragraphs":["para_483"]},{"title":"611 (2018). We have made clear that each government interception of privileged","paragraphs":["para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/19","paragraphs":["para_492","para_493","para_494"]},{"title":"B. Right To Free Speech","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Canter next contends that the use of A2U by DOC to ensure compliance","paragraphs":["para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502"]},{"title":"DOC does not substantively engage with Canter’s First Amendment","paragraphs":["para_504","para_505"]},{"title":"DOC offered a case regarding monitoring of controlled substance use and then","paragraphs":["para_507"]},{"title":"First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to reflect the circumstances of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Canter’s crime, the State’s interest in the protection of children, and the needs of","paragraphs":["para_510"]},{"title":"Canter further notes that our State Supreme Court predicted this precise","paragraphs":["para_512","para_513","para_514"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/20","paragraphs":["para_516"]},{"title":"1. Government Infringement on Free Speech by A2U Monitoring","paragraphs":["para_518"]},{"title":"The First Amendment provides in relevant part that “Congress shall make","paragraphs":["para_520","para_521","para_522"]},{"title":"Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (freedom from compelled","paragraphs":["para_524","para_525"]},{"title":"Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) (freedom to engage in boycotts). Further, the","paragraphs":["para_527","para_528"]},{"title":"Amendment. One particularly relevant example, analyzed further in Section III.B.2","paragraphs":["para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533"]},{"title":"582 U.S. at 104 (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 868","paragraphs":["para_535"]},{"title":"The speech implications of DOC’s constant monitoring of Canter’s text","paragraphs":["para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/21","paragraphs":["para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546"]},{"title":"At oral argument before this court, DOC justified the suspicionless","paragraphs":["para_548","para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559"]},{"title":"2. Government Infringement on Free Speech by Banning Social","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Media Use","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Again, a community custody condition may restrict a supervisee’s First","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Amendment rights, but that restriction must be narrowly tailored, sensitively","paragraphs":["para_564","para_565","para_566"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/22","paragraphs":["para_568","para_569"]},{"title":"(quoting State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37-38, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993)). While the","paragraphs":["para_571","para_572","para_573"]},{"title":"Packingham, the Supreme Court explicitly noted that “[s]ocial media offers","paragraphs":["para_575","para_576","para_577"]},{"title":"Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. at 870). It further held that total","paragraphs":["para_579","para_580"]},{"title":"Before the trial court and in the instant petition, Canter alleged that Young","paragraphs":["para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589"]},{"title":"Young’s implementation of such a broad restriction plainly constituted an abuse of","paragraphs":["para_591"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/23","paragraphs":["para_593","para_594","para_595","para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599"]},{"title":"Canter did not attempt to find victims via traditional social media.19 DOC tries to","paragraphs":["para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606","para_607"]},{"title":"Ng’s recent decision to reduce the scope of incursions into Canter’s right to","paragraphs":["para_609"]},{"title":"Canter took great care at oral argument before this court to recognize and express","paragraphs":["para_611","para_612","para_613","para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/24","paragraphs":["para_619","para_620","para_621"]},{"title":"A2U if Canter engages in any potentially problematic interactions online and will","paragraphs":["para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630"]},{"title":"C. Vagueness and Right To Due Process","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Finally, Canter asserts that the social media ban and enforcement of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Internet monitoring condition violate his right to due process because they are","paragraphs":["para_634"]},{"title":"CCOs that they have “Everything” access, rather than simply “Alerts,” and the total","paragraphs":["para_636","para_637"]},{"title":"DOC does not engage with his due process argument or otherwise analyze the","paragraphs":["para_639"]},{"title":"The Fourteenth Amendment declares in relevant part that “[n]o state","paragraphs":["para_641","para_642"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/25","paragraphs":["para_644","para_645"]},{"title":"Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 752; City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 178, 795","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"P.2d 693 (1990); State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 264, 676 P.2d 996 (1984);","paragraphs":["para_648"]},{"title":"Our Supreme Court has identified several “overarching instances when a","paragraphs":["para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653"]},{"title":"U.S. 104, 108 (1972)). Next, the condition must have “explicit standards” to","paragraphs":["para_655"]},{"title":"(quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108). Finally, a vague condition that “encroaches","paragraphs":["para_657","para_658","para_659","para_660"]},{"title":"The outright ban on social media use initially imposed on Canter clearly","paragraphs":["para_662","para_663","para_664"]},{"title":"CCOs. Young and Watt maintained the ban, despite the trial court’s clarification","paragraphs":["para_666","para_667"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/26","paragraphs":["para_669"]},{"title":"Separately, Canter asserts that the Internet monitoring conditions also fail","paragraphs":["para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674","para_675","para_676"]},{"title":"Fields began her e-mail response to him with, “I feel like we have been over this","paragraphs":["para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681"]},{"title":"A2U “Everything” setting relies on some level of trust that the CCO will not access","paragraphs":["para_683","para_684","para_685","para_686","para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691","para_692"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/27","paragraphs":["para_694","para_695","para_696"]},{"title":"D. Agency Guidance Required to Satisfy Narrow-Tailoring Requirement","paragraphs":["para_698"]},{"title":"The facts of Canter’s history of supervision highlight the necessity for DOC","paragraphs":["para_700","para_701"]},{"title":"While we recognize the practical need to defer to the CCOs the interpretation of","paragraphs":["para_703","para_704","para_705"]},{"title":"Arbitrary enforcement of conditions as occurred here violates the due process","paragraphs":["para_707"]},{"title":"Separately, the A2U “Everything” setting, when used as a baseline of","paragraphs":["para_709","para_710"]},{"title":"Perhaps more critically, DOC must wrestle with the fact that A2U, and likely other","paragraphs":["para_712","para_713","para_714"]},{"title":"22 In one of many examples Canter provided, A2U issued an alert based on e-mails with","paragraphs":["para_716","para_717","para_718","para_719"]},{"title":"No. 85969-2-I/28","paragraphs":["para_721","para_722","para_723"]},{"title":"CCO absolute discretion to view A2U’s suspicionless searches is a constitutional","paragraphs":["para_725"]},{"title":"Canter has carried his burden to demonstrate that his restraint is unlawful","paragraphs":["para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732"]},{"title":"WE CONCUR:","paragraphs":["para_734"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"NOTICE: SLIP OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"(not the court’s final written decision)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"written opinions that are originally filed by the court.","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"the court.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"In the Matter of the Personal Restraint","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"of:","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"STEPHEN WAYNE CANTER,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Petitioner.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"DIVISION ONE","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"PUBLISHED OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"HAZELRIGG, C.J. — Stephen Canter, by personal restraint petition,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"challenges the enforcement of community custody conditions imposed by the","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Indeterminate Sentence Review Board upon his release. He argues that the","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"procedures utilized by the Department of Corrections to monitor his Internet","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"activities infringe on his fundamental rights and, contrary to constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"requirements, are not narrowly tailored. We agree and grant the petition.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"FACTS","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"In February 2016, Canter responded to an online personal ad on Craigslist","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"posted by undercover law enforcement officers pretending to be a mother of young","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"daughters. He used text messages and e-mail to communicate with the “mother”","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"to set the conditions of the encounter, which included sex with the fictitious","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"children, and was arrested when he arrived at the meeting location. The State","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"charged Canter with one count of attempted rape of a child in the first degree and","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"one count of commercial sexual abuse of a minor.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/2","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Canter waived his right to a jury trial and instead proceeded to a stipulated","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"facts bench trial in May 2019 on an amended information containing two counts of","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"attempted child molestation in the first degree after which he was convicted as","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"charged. Several months later, on August 20, the court imposed an indeterminate","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"sentence of 50.25 months to life in prison. The judge included several community","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"custody conditions in the judgment and sentence (J&S) and even more in appendix","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"4.2 to the J&S. The requirements in appendix 4.2 include the following: condition","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"18 prohibits Canter’s use of “computer chat rooms”; condition 20 requires that if","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"the Department of Corrections (DOC) deems it necessary, Canter permit","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"installation of monitoring software on his Internet-enabled devices; and condition","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"21 prohibits Canter from accessing the Internet from any device without first","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"notifying DOC about that device. Canter appealed his convictions and sentence","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"to this court, both of which were affirmed. See State v. Canter, 17 Wn. App. 2d","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"728, 731, 487 P.3d 916 (2021).","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"In November 2022, while Canter was serving his prison term, the End of","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Sentence Review Committee rated him as having a “low risk” of recidivism. The","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) held a hearing on Canter’s","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"releasability in February 2023, during which it considered “the possible conditions","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"of release and the remaining evidence” before it ultimately found Canter","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"releasable. The ISRB’s release order followed in March 2023 and included still","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"more community custody conditions. Relevant here is ISRB condition B,","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"establishing the following:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"You must not access the Internet without developing a signed Board","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Electronic Device Inventory and Internet Search Requirement form,For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/3","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"approved by your field case manager that includes a list of all","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"[I]nternet-capable devices in your possession or that you have","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"access to, and installing any special software on your device required","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"by your field case manager in order to monitor your compliance with","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"[I]nternet-related conditions imposed by the court and/or the ISRB.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"A copy of the signed Board Electronic Device Inventory and Internet","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Search Requirement form must be provided to the ISRB. The signed","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"form will remain in effect unless amended or removed [sic] the field","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"case manager and the ISRB.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"DOC assigned Kimberly Young as Canter’s community corrections officer","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"(CCO) in April 2023. After his release from prison, Canter completed the ISRB’s","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"inventory and Internet form, which included the following restriction on his Internet","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"use:","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"You will install any special software on your device that is required","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"by your Field Case Manager in order to monitor your compliance with","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"[I]nternet-related conditions imposed by the court and/or the ISRB at","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"your expense. Information gathered by monitoring software may be","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"used in subsequent court actions and/or ISRB violation proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Canter complied and installed monitoring software called “Accountable2You”","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"(A2U) in May 2023. Canter later asserted in briefing to this court that Young told","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"him that in addition to using A2U, he was not allowed to use social media websites","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"because she believed that the prohibition on the use of chat rooms extended to all","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"social media.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"CCO Stefanie Watt explained in a declaration prepared for this personal","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"restraint petition (PRP) that A2U monitors Canter’s Internet connected devices “in","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"real time for ‘trigger words’” including “pornography, porn, sex, penis, vagina, and","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"other various slang words for intimate body parts as well as certain swear words.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"The trigger words are preset on Accountable2You’s software.” Watt’s declaration","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"further described the level of monitoring relevant to Canter and explained that hisFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/4","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"CCO received a weekly e-mail containing his activities that were flagged and","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"deemed “questionable or highly questionable” based on the keywords. She further","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"noted that these activity descriptions contained the “website name, website URL,[1]","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"portions of text located on a website, portions of text from an e[-]mail, portions of","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"text from a text message, or portions of text from a search performed in a search","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"engine.”","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Keith Hines, an assistant attorney general with the corrections division,","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"included a description of the “Everything” monitoring setting from A2U’s website","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"as an attachment to his declaration that was also prepared for this matter.2 A2U","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"described the “Everything” setting of its software as follows: “The partner will have","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"access to view records and reports of all recorded activity from the device including","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"both non-questionable and questionable (‘flagged’) activity.”3 A representative","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"from A2U explained to Canter’s counsel via e-mail that the “Everything” setting","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"allowed the CCO “to view all activity records that are uploaded to the online report.”","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"The material from A2U’s website that Hines provided in his declaration","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"further explained that Internet activity is retained by A2U for fifteen days, after","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"which it is “expunged” and cannot be recovered, although the online detail reports","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"that are generated can be exported for preservation. This A2U documentation also","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"noted that specific applications can be excluded from monitoring.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"1 “Uniform resource locator,” more commonly referred to as an Internet address.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"2 In a declaration prepared for this litigation, CCO Jonathan Ng confirmed that until March","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"25, 2025, Canter had been subject to scrutiny under A2U’s “Everything” setting.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"3 A2U defines a partner as “the person who receives reports and alerts containing activity","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"from the device being monitored.”For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/5","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"In June 2023, Canter, as a self-represented litigant, brought a motion in","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Snohomish County Superior Court to “clarify or modify” a number of the community","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"custody conditions that had been imposed in his J&S based on the differences","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"between his interpretation of the limitations and Young’s. Therein, he alleged that","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Young had construed the prohibition on “computer chat rooms” to mean that","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Canter “may not have access [to] or use any social media, instant messaging","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"within the gmail.com or any account, help chat boxes on websites to include the","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Veterans Administration [(VA)4], medical institutions, financial institutions, or work","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"source [web]sites.” In response, DOC sought to transfer Canter’s motion to the","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Court of Appeals as a PRP.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"The trial court ordered the parties to appear for oral argument on the motion,","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"which occurred on June 26, 2023. On July 27, the trial judge issued an order","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"clarifying some of the conditions set forth in Canter’s J&S.5 The court specifically","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"addressed the condition banning Canter from using Internet chat rooms and","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"clarified its narrow interpretation of that term. The judge expressly stated that their","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"use of the phrase “chat rooms” was “intended to mean a channel or [web]site online","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"where conversation occurs only in real time by text for non-business purposes by","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"a group communicating about a limited common non-business interest in","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"communications regarding sexual contact with minors.” The court further","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"explained that its intent was to bar Canter from chat rooms “where historically","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"4 We interpret Canter’s use of “Veteran’s Administration” in his motion as a reference to","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"5 The resulting ruling by the trial court addressed only Canter’s request for clarification of","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"condition 18, the ban on accessing “computer chat rooms,” and as to condition 20 regarding DOC","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"use of monitoring software. After the trial court issued its ruling, Canter moved to withdraw his","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"motion to clarify the remaining conditions and the court granted that motion.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/6","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"pedophiles sometimes congregated” but the condition was not intended “to include","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"generally all of Facetime,[6] Zoom,[7] Texting, Facebook,[8] e[-]mailing, or all other","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"types of social media generally.” The court provided further monitoring guidance","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"and clarified that Canter’s use of these platforms was restricted under this","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"condition only if it “is used by persons for real time communication regarding illegal","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"purposes of a sexual nature related to this crime, such as viewing child","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"pornography or contacting minors for sexual purposes.”","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"However, the court also reiterated that the ISRB has the authority to impose","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"its own conditions to monitor Canter’s Internet access and DOC has the authority","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"to effectuate those conditions via monitoring. The court expressly cautioned DOC","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"against monitoring “anything and everything” and explicitly warned that","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"surveillance of Canter’s communication with his attorney was not permitted.9","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"In August 2023, Canter provided Young with a copy of the court’s","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"clarification order in an attempt to have DOC revise its monitoring based on","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Canter’s own interpretation of the order. He later sent a copy of the order directly","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"to the ISRB, along with a letter explaining the procedural history of his interactions","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"with Young about these conditions. In response, a hearing investigator for the","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"6 “Facetime” is a videoconferencing application.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"7 “Zoom” is a videoconferencing platform.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"8 “Facebook” is a social media and social networking service.","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"9 The trial court noted,","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"The intent of this provision [allowing DOC monitoring of Canter’s devices that","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"access the Internet] was that DOC can monitor internet activity to monitor","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"compliance with ordered conditions, not just monitor anything and everything. This","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"provision does not prohibit DOC from doing more monitoring if required by ISRB","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"to match additional provisions used by ISRB. However, it would not permit","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"monitoring things such as communication with the Defendant’s attorney. This","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"clarification and interpretation is necessary as without it the condition may be","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"illegal.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"(Emphasis added.)For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/7","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"ISRB e-mailed Canter and advised him that “the [ISRB] has determined that they","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"will not be changing their position on this topic” and emphasized both its","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"independent authority to impose additional conditions and DOC’s discretion in","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"implementing those conditions.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"In September 2023, Canter filed a motion to compel the ISRB and DOC to","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"comply with the J&S as clarified by the July 27 trial court order, asserting that DOC","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"and the ISRB needed to narrowly tailor the enforcement of conditions that","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"authorized monitoring his use of the Internet. In its response to Canter’s motion,","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"DOC asserted that it could not “be a party to this criminal action” and the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"did “not have personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over DOC in [that]","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"criminal proceeding.” The trial judge conceded a lack of jurisdiction, agreed with","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"DOC that the motion should be transferred to the Court of Appeals as a PRP, and","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"directed the Office of the Attorney General to submit a transfer order. The trial","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"court signed the transfer order on November 2, 2023. In March 2024, the Acting","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Chief Judge of this division issued an order referring the petition to a panel and","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"appointing counsel.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"That same month, Canter’s supervision was transferred to Watt. Watt","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"allowed Canter to turn off monitoring for the VA and Navy Federal Credit Union","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"(NFCU) applications on his phone. In September, Canter’s supervision was again","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"transferred, this time to CCO Johnathan Ng. In December, DOC sought and was","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"granted leave to supplement the record with a declaration from Ng, which Canter","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"did not oppose. Ng’s declaration stated that Canter had contacted him onFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/8","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"November 25, asking for permission to use social media and video conferencing","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"and Ng had granted Canter’s request.","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"In March 2025, DOC brought a second motion to supplement the record","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"with another declaration from Ng, which Canter joined and this court granted.10","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Ng’s second declaration asserted that he had approved further changes to","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Canter’s monitoring and detailed them. Ng explained that he had permitted Canter","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"to change A2U’s monitoring setting from “Everything” to “Alerts,” with the caveat","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"that Ng could require Canter to revert this change if Ng was “investigating","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"supervision violations.” Ng also declared that he told Canter that in order to ensure","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"that attorney-client communications were excluded from monitoring, Canter should","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"add the attorney’s name and e-mail as new trigger words in A2U and then set","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"those words to “Ignore.” Ng’s stated understanding at the time of the declaration","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"was that this would mean “[A2U] will not send [Ng] any alerts on activity records","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"containing the attorney’s name and email address.” Ng claimed that Canter had","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"confirmed that he had done so.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Canter moved to supplement the record the day before oral argument in this","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"court. The material Canter wished to have this court consider included a","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"declaration from his appellate counsel, who explained that after Ng had instructed","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Canter to add her e-mail address to A2U’s list of excluded trigger words, she","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"followed up with A2U to inquire about the effectiveness of this measure. She","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"asserted that in response to her query, A2U confirmed that there was no way to","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"completely exclude her privileged communications with Canter from monitoring.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"10 Prior to oral argument, the Clerk of this court entered a ruling at the direction of the panel","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"granting this motion to supplement.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/9","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"DOC did not object to Canter’s motion to supplement and the panel granted his","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"motion at oral argument.11","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"I. Standard of Review for PRPs","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"To prevail on a PRP, the petitioner must prove that they are currently","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"restrained and the restraint is unlawful. In re Pers. Restraint of Blackburn, 168","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Wn.2d 881, 883-84, 232 P.3d 1091 (2010); RAP 16.4(a)-(c). As relevant here, a","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"showing of restraint requires proving that the petitioner has limited freedom due to","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"a judgment in a criminal case. RAP 16.4(b). A person subject to conditions","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"imposed by the ISRB is restrained within the meaning of RAP 16.4. See In re Pers.","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"Restraint of Winton, 196 Wn.2d 270, 274-75, 474 P.3d 532 (2020). Canter is","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"restrained by the ISRB conditions he now challenges, which limit his freedom to","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"access and communicate via the Internet as a result of his criminal conviction, and","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"the manner by which DOC has chosen to enforce them. See In re Pers. Restraint","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"of Ansell, 1 Wn.3d 882, 892, 533 P.3d 875 (2023) (plurality opinion).","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"The petitioner carries the burden in a PRP to prove by a preponderance of","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"the evidence that they are entitled to relief. In re Pers. Restraint of Frazier, 4 Wn.3d","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"1, 26, 558 P.3d 451 (2024). In order to obtain relief, Canter must establish that his","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"restraint by way of the ISRB conditions and DOC enforcement thereof is unlawful.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"The restraint is unlawful if it is “in violation of the Constitution of the United States","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"or the Constitution or laws of the State of Washington.” RAP 16.4(c)(6); see also","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"11 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., In re Pers. Restraint of Canter, No. 85969-2-I (Apr. 22,","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"2025), at 0 min., 34 sec., video recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network,","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-2025041402/.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/10","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277 ([T]he imposition of an unconstitutional condition would","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"be manifestly unreasonable.”).","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Conditions imposed by the ISRB are reviewed for abuse of discretion;","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"“[i]mposition of an unconstitutional condition is manifestly unreasonable.” Ansell,","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"1 Wn.3d at 892. Recently, in State v. Johnson, our State Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"recognized the role of individual CCOs in the specifics of the enforcement of","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"community custody conditions and appeared to suggest that CCO decisions are","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"also subject to the same constitutional limitations as the ISRB or DOC’s imposition","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"of those conditions. 197 Wn.2d 740, 745-49, 487 P.3d 893 (2021). It stands to","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"reason, then, that DOC enforcement decisions are subject to the same abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"discretion standard.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"II. Mootness","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"As a threshold matter, we acknowledge the various modifications Ng","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"authorized with regard to his monitoring of Canter’s Internet activity and first","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"consider whether they have mooted Canter’s PRP. A petition is moot “if we can","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"no longer provide effective relief.” In re Pers. Restraint of Blaylock, 30 Wn. App.","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"2d 569, 577, 546 P.3d 86 (2024). However, we may review an issue that is","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"otherwise moot if it satisfies an exception to the mootness doctrine. One such","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"exception is “if the issue involves [a] continuing and substantial public interest.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"This court has previously explained that","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Washington courts consider three factors when determining","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"whether a case presents an issue of continuing and substantial","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"public interest: (1) whether the issue is of a public or private nature,","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"(2) whether an authoritative determination is desirable to provideFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/11","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"future guidance to public officers, and (3) whether the issue is likely","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"to recur.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"State v. Gelinas, 15 Wn. App. 2d 484, 488, 478 P.3d 638 (2020). In his","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"supplemental brief, Canter persuasively argues that “[t]his [c]ourt and the Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"Court have repeatedly held that the proper interpretation of statutes and rules","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"governing the supervised release of sex offenders are matters of substantial public","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"interest.” He further notes that the ISRB “and DOC regularly impose [I]nternet-","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"monitoring conditions on community custody supervisees whose offenses involved","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"social media.”","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"The ISRB offers no response to Canter’s preemptive arguments regarding","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"mootness. Because A2U remains on Canter’s devices and is continuing to collect","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"data, including his constitutionally-protected communications with counsel that the","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"trial court explicitly warned could not be intercepted, the issues presented are not","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"moot, and we are able to provide effective relief should Canter carry his burden in","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"this PRP. Accordingly, we need not address the public interest exception factors","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"and instead proceed to the merits.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"III. Constitutionality of DOC Enforcement of Internet-Related Conditions","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"The ISRB has statutory authority to impose additional community custody","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"conditions “based upon the crime of conviction, risk of reoffense, or risk to","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"community safety.” RCW 9.95.420(2). However, any ISRB modifications or","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"conditions imposed in addition to those ordered by the court may not be “contrary","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"to those ordered by the court and may not contravene or decrease court-imposed","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"conditions.” RCW 9.94A.704(10)(b). Further, the ISRB “must consider and mayFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/12","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"impose [DOC]-recommended conditions.” Id. DOC is required to monitor","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"supervisees convicted of sex offenses to ensure compliance with the conditions","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"imposed on them and for any potential violations. RCW 9.94A.507(5).","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"However, the respective authority of the ISRB and DOC is not without","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"limitation. Our Supreme Court has explained that “[c]onditions that interfere with","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"fundamental rights must be reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"needs of the State and public order” and “must be sensitively imposed.” State v.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 32, 195 P.3d 940 (2008). While our state’s highest court","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"was specifically addressing general sentencing conditions from the trial court in","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Warren, it subsequently explained in Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277, that though such","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"conditions “are distinguishable in some aspects,” it had later applied a similar","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"analysis to community custody conditions in State v. Bahl.12 More critically here,","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"Winton plainly declared that “the same reasoning [from Bahl and State v.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Nguyen13] applies . . . to community custody conditions imposed by the ISRB.”","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 277-78. The ISRB abuses its discretion if it imposes","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"conditions impacting fundamental rights that are not “sensitively imposed” or","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"narrowly tailored. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"Canter’s overarching claim is that the ISRB, through DOC, has failed, in its","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"efforts to monitor imposed conditions, to comply with statutory and constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"requirements to “narrowly tailor any community custody conditions burdening a","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"fundamental right.” Toward that end, he presents three distinct federal and state","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"constitutional challenges to the manner by which DOC has elected to monitor the","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"12 164 Wn.2d 739, 193 P.3d 678 (2008).","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"13 191 Wn.2d 671, 425 P.3d 847 (2018).For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/13","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"conditions imposed: it unjustifiably infringes on his right to privacy under the Fourth","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of our state","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"constitution; it chills or precludes his right to free speech under the First","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the boundaries of his","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"supervision are too vague to provide proper notice of prohibited conduct in violation","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"of his right to due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"States Constitution.","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"A. Right To Privacy","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"The Constitution of the United States protects against unreasonable search","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"and seizure. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Our state constitution enshrines a more","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"protective right to privacy: “[n]o person shall be disturbed in [their] private affairs,","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"or [their] home invaded, without authority of law.” WASH. CONST. art. I § 7.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"However, for persons subject to supervision by DOC, some degree of","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"infringement of their constitutional rights as part of that monitoring is permissible.","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 275; State v. Balles, 32 Wn. App. 2d 356, 365, 556 P.3d 698","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"(2024) (explaining supervisees “do not enjoy the same constitutional privacy","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"protections as other citizens”), aff’d, __ Wn.3d __, 572 P.3d 1186 (2025).","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"“Washington courts have specifically recognized the reduced privacy interests of","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"sex offenders due to the threat they pose to public safety.” In re Det. of Lee, 14","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Wn. App. 2d 271, 294, 471 P.3d 915 (2020).","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"DOC may limit a supervisee’s right to privacy only insofar as required by the","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"supervision process. Id. at 293-94. DOC must still narrowly tailor restrictions on","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"a supervisee’s Internet access based on the risks presented by that specificFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/14","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"supervisee. See Johnson, 197 Wn.2d at 745. More generally, the United States","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"Supreme Court has held that government restrictions on access to the Internet,","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"particularly social media, “must be ‘narrowly tailored to serve a significant","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"government interest.’” Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 105-08 (2017)","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"(quoting McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 486 (2014)).","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"1. A2U Monitoring Is a Constant Suspicionless Search","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"Individuals subject to government supervision, like community custody, are","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"“not entitled to the full protection of article I, section 7” of the state constitution.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"State v. Cornwell, 190 Wn.2d 296, 301, 412 P.3d 1265 (2018). A CCO does not","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"need a warrant to conduct a search of a supervisee, including searches of","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"electronic devices; reasonable suspicion will suffice. Id. at 302; see also RCW","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"9.94A.631(1). However, the law “permits a warrantless search of the property of","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"an individual on probation only where there is a nexus between the property","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"searched and the alleged probation violation.” Id. at 306 (emphasis added).14 Our","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Supreme Court has explained that the nexus is required because to allow","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"otherwise would subject supervisees to searches that could be “used as ‘a fishing","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"expedition to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present.’” Id. at 304","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d 118, 134,","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"399 P.3d 1141 (2017)). It further held that a supervisee’s privacy rights may be","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"lessened “‘only to the extent necessitated by the legitimate demands of the","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"14 While the court in Cornwell at times used the term “probation,” the facts of that case","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"establish that Cornwell had been ordered to report to DOC for supervision, which is community","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"custody. 190 Wn.2d at 298.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/15","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"- 15 -","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"operation of the [community supervision] process.’” Id. at 303-04 (alteration in","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Olsen, 189 Wn.2d at 125).","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Canter was convicted of sex offenses and will be on community custody","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"and under the authority of the ISRB for the remainder of his life. Nonetheless, he","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"enjoys a right to privacy that may be reduced only to the extent necessary to","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"ensure compliance with the conditions imposed by the ISRB. Canter’s offense","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"was facilitated by the use of the Internet, which means the interest of public safety","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"requires some degree of Internet monitoring. However, the A2U monitoring","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"software as initially configured by DOC was overly invasive and enabled","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"suspicionless searches that far exceeded the bounds identified by our State","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"Supreme Court in Cornwell.","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"The facts underlying Canter’s crimes of conviction do not require monitoring","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"of his financial information, medical information, or communications with his","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"attorney, particularly given that the latter two categories of information are subject","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"to separate statutory and constitutional protections. The ISRB does not appear to","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"suggest it is entitled to such private information, but it does not provide any rule or","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"internal policy that would prevent individual CCOs from accessing these sorts of","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"protected information through A2U.","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"DOC did not initially offer any articulable standard, such as reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"suspicion of a violation of Canter’s conditions of release, to justify its access to","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"Canter’s otherwise private information either. In fact, Young, Canter’s CCO at the","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"time of his release onto community custody, required the “Everything” setting be","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"enabled within A2U, as did his next CCO, Watt. However, even though Ng allowedFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/16","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"- 16 -","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"Canter to limit the setting to “Alerts,” according to A2U, that simply means that the","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"CCO would only receive reports flagging potentially problematic activity. It does","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"not mean that the system ceases monitoring all of Canter’s Internet activity,","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"including that involving clearly protected health information, personal financial","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"information, and privileged attorney-client communication. That is the problem we","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"must resolve: whether the continuous monitoring and potential for viewing by the","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"CCO infringes on even the reduced rights of a supervisee, particularly where there","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"is no DOC policy constraining CCO determinations about what level of oversight","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"they may require.","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"At oral argument before this court, DOC contended, and Canter did not","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"dispute, that only Canter can revert the monitoring from “Alerts” to “Everything.”15","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"That is, only the person in control of the device may change the level of monitoring;","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"the CCO does not have remote access to each device through A2U. DOC further","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"asserted that if Ng has reasonable suspicion to conduct a search, part of his","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"investigation will include directing Canter to revert to “Everything” monitoring, so","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"the CCO can view the potential violation.16 However, these contentions have no","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"impact on the matter of perpetual suspicionless searches by way of A2U’s constant","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"monitoring of Canter’s electronic communications.","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"2. A2U Captures Protected Privileged Communications","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"As initially configured, the CCO’s monitoring of Canter’s Internet activity","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"included the ability to view confidential health and financial information, as well as","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"15 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 12 min., 50 sec.","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"16 Id. at 13 min., 43 sec.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/17","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"- 17 -","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"intercept privileged communication with his attorney. Canter stated that this","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"included his communications with the VA regarding his treatment for posttraumatic","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"stress disorder and his use of banking and stock trading applications. While that","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"particular issue has been remedied by Ng’s permission to exclude the relevant","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"applications on Canter’s device, here the VA and NFCU, this does not address the","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"broader question of whether the collection of this information by A2U, or any other","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"similar program, and viewing of the information by the CCO satisfies the narrow","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"tailoring requirement when conditions of confinement or supervision impact a","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"fundamental right.","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"“The fact of admission to a provider for mental health services and all","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"information and records compiled, obtained, or maintained in the course of","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"providing mental health services to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"services at public or private agencies may not be disclosed except as provided” by","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"law. RCW 70.02.230(1). Federal law also limits the disclosure of protected health","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"information. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512. The ISRB and DOC appear to agree that","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"nothing about the circumstances of Canter’s crime necessitated monitoring his","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"health or financial information and no later events, such as purported violations of","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"the terms of his supervision, justified the invasion into such sensitive and","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"confidential matters. More critically, the level of intrusion into these protected","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"aspects of a supervisee’s life appears to rest on the discretion of individual CCOs.","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"Young required a setting that provided her with reports that included surveillance","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"of private information wholly unrelated to the crime of conviction, but Canter","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"successfully convinced Watts and later Ng to approve exemption of certainFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/18","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"- 18 -","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"applications. Nonetheless, the ISRB appears to argue that reliance on each CCO","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"to engage in the narrow tailoring required by the federal and state constitutions is","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"sufficient.","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"The same is effectively true as to Canter’s privileged communications with","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"counsel as, at present, it remains unclear the degree to which those interactions","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"are protected from intrusions by CCOs via A2U monitoring. Ng advised Canter on","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"how to make it less likely that his communications with counsel would be flagged","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"by A2U, but based on Canter’s appellate counsel’s declaration to this court, it","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"seems that this method is not infallible and, even if it were, those communications","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"are ultimately still available and accessible by the CCO through A2U.","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"The right to counsel is enshrined in our nation’s constitution. See U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"CONST. amend. VI. This necessarily “includes the right to confer privately with that","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"counsel.” State v. Myers, 27 Wn. App. 2d 798, 804, 533 P.3d 451 (quoting State","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"v. Peña Fuentes, 179 Wn.2d 808, 811, 318 P.3d 257 (2014)), review denied, 2","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"Wn.3d 1010 (2023). The right “is violated when the State intrudes into a privileged","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"attorney-client communication.” State v. Irby, 3 Wn. App. 2d 247, 254, 415 P.3d","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"611 (2018). We have made clear that each government interception of privileged","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"attorney-client communications represents a separate violation of this protected","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"right. See Myers, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 808-09, 816-18. Canter has not separately","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"challenged CCO intrusions into communications with counsel, but, absent a DOC","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"policy to avoid infringement on this fundamental right, there is a significant risk of","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"repeated constitutional violations, with Canter or other supervisees. The efficacy","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"of the steps recommended by Ng remains unclear, and the lack of a formal DOCFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/19","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"- 19 -","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"policy to prevent future trespass underscores the problems with the current","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"monitoring software and supervision protocols.","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"B. Right To Free Speech","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"Canter next contends that the use of A2U by DOC to ensure compliance","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"with his conditions of community custody creates a “chilling effect” on his rights","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"under the First Amendment and by “excluding text [messages] and e[-]mails from","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"its monitoring and limiting the rest of the monitoring to ‘Alerts’ only, DOC can","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"mitigate these First Amendment concerns.” He also avers that Young’s prohibition","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"of his use of social media ran afoul of Packingham but acknowledges that this","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"particular prohibition was recently removed by Ng.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"DOC does not substantively engage with Canter’s First Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"concerns in its supplemental brief but did address the issue in a statement of","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"additional authorities proffered in late March 2025 pursuant to RAP 10.8. Therein,","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"DOC offered a case regarding monitoring of controlled substance use and then","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"broadly asserted that the Internet monitoring at issue here does not violate the","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to reflect the circumstances of","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"Canter’s crime, the State’s interest in the protection of children, and the needs of","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"Canter’s CCOs to have effective tools for achieving that stated goal.","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"Canter further notes that our State Supreme Court predicted this precise","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"issue in Johnson when it acknowledged that “[w]hile requiring [the use of] an","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"overzealous filter might violate the First Amendment, that is a question of","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"appropriate enforcement and question for another day.” 197 Wn.2d at 746-47.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/20","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"- 20 -","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"1. Government Infringement on Free Speech by A2U Monitoring","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"of Text and E-mail Communications","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"The First Amendment provides in relevant part that “Congress shall make","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Our nation’s highest court has","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"interpreted our right to free speech as protecting a vast array of activities, including","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"refraining from speech or engaging in symbolic and commercial speech. See W.","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (freedom from compelled","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"speech); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) (freedom to engage in","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"symbolic speech); Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) (freedom to engage in boycotts). Further, the","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"jurisprudential limitations on government restrictions of this core right exceed well","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"beyond the congressional law-making specifically referenced in the text of the First","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"Amendment. One particularly relevant example, analyzed further in Section III.B.2","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"infra, comes from the United States Supreme Court, which specifically held that","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"our right to free speech also protects access to the places where that speech","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"occurs and recognized that among “the most important places” this speech takes","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"place “is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet.’” Packingham,","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"582 U.S. at 104 (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 868","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"(1997)).","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"The speech implications of DOC’s constant monitoring of Canter’s text","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"messages and e-mails through A2U are clear: his private financial transactions are","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"monitored, privileged communication with health care providers and his attorney","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"are captured and scanned for “trigger words,” and any discussions with friends,","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"loved ones, or colleagues about myriad private or sensitive topics far beyond theFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/21","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"- 21 -","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"scope of the conduct underlying Canter’s crimes of conviction are analyzed and","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"recorded in the event that a CCO finds a reason to review them. It is hard to","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"imagine a more chilling effect than having nearly every word one may type into a","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"device collected by the government for possible future examination.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"At oral argument before this court, DOC justified the suspicionless","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"monitoring of Canter’s text messages and e-mails as “crime-related.”17 However,","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"as Canter correctly noted, the connection between his crimes of conviction and","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"these modes of communication is too common to support such unfettered","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"scrutiny.18 The interaction between law enforcement and Canter that led to his","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"arrest began on Craigslist and only later moved to text messages and Canter’s","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"private e-mail. If Canter’s CCO should become aware that he has attempted to","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"contact potential victims by Craigslist or traditional social media, the CCO would","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"then have reasonable suspicion to intrude into Canter’s electronic communications","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"to search for evidence of a violation. But absent that reasonable suspicion, broad","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"routine intrusions on a cornerstone of modern communication cannot meet the","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"constitutional requirement of narrow tailoring to the circumstances of Canter’s","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"crime.","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"2. Government Infringement on Free Speech by Banning Social","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"Media Use","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"Again, a community custody condition may restrict a supervisee’s First","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"Amendment rights, but that restriction must be narrowly tailored, sensitively","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"imposed, and “‘reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"17 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 18 min., 51 sec.","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"18 Id. at 8 min., 20 sec.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/22","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"- 22 -","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"state and public order.’” Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 757 (internal quotation marks omitted)","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"(quoting State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37-38, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993)). While the","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"free speech implications of the social media ban Young imposed on Canter may","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"not be as immediately apparent as those arising from constant seizure and","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"scanning of his e-mails and text messages, they are nonetheless significant. In","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"Packingham, the Supreme Court explicitly noted that “[s]ocial media offers","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"‘relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds’” and its users","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"“employ these websites to engage in a wide variety of protected First Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"activities on topics ‘as diverse as human thought.’” 582 U.S. at 104-05 (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. at 870). It further held that total","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"prohibitions on the use of social media, without some degree of tailoring, will be","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"found unconstitutional. Id. at 105-08.","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"Before the trial court and in the instant petition, Canter alleged that Young","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"had interpreted the sentencing court’s condition that prohibited his use of chat","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"rooms to be a general restriction on the use of social media. Given that A2U allows","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"for CCOs to ensure that Canter is not engaging in any inappropriate interactions","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"on social media, this blanket prohibition imposed by DOC violated the","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"constitutional requirement for narrow tailoring. The ban was not “reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"necessary” to carry out DOC’s objective, which could have been achieved through","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"less restrictive means, including simply relying on the monitoring of Canter’s","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"communication on social media by A2U for inappropriate interactions. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"Young’s implementation of such a broad restriction plainly constituted an abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"discretion as DOC failed to demonstrate any compliance with the constitutionalFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/23","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"- 23 -","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"mandate for narrow tailoring, or sensitive imposition, as set out in binding federal","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"and state authority. See Packingham, 582 U.S. at 105-08; Winton, 196 Wn.2d at","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"277, Johnson, 197 Wn.2d at 745, Olsen, 189 Wn.2d at 127-28; State v. Padilla,","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"190 Wn.2d 672, 678, 416 P.3d 712 (2018); Ansell, 1 Wn.3d at 923 (McCloud, J.,","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"concurring in part).","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"As noted herein, and as DOC conceded at oral argument before this court,","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"Canter did not attempt to find victims via traditional social media.19 DOC tries to","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"explain away Young’s complete prohibition on social media use as a means of","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"effectuating the conditions imposed by the trial court and the ISRB and also asserts","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"that it can find no evidence of Young’s bar on such access. However,","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"documentation Canter provided that demonstrates his continued efforts to be","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"allowed social media access strongly suggests that Young did broadly interpret the","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"condition in the manner Canter alleges. Further, Canter notes that Young’s","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"declaration to the trial court did not deny his allegations on this issue.","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"Ng’s recent decision to reduce the scope of incursions into Canter’s right to","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"free speech now satisfies some of the requirements regarding narrow tailoring.","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"Canter took great care at oral argument before this court to recognize and express","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"gratitude to both Ng, and by extension DOC, for these significant improvements","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"that bring the government closer to compliance with these constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"mandates.20 The parties agree that Canter is currently permitted to use social","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"media for business, personal enrichment, and everyday social interactions, so long","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"as he otherwise complies with the conditions of his release. Canter’s social media","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"19 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 19 min., 3 sec.","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"20 Id. at 6 min., 50 sec.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/24","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"- 24 -","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"access does not conflict with the State’s interest in protecting potential child victims","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"from him. Ng’s declarations to this court establish that he will receive alerts from","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"A2U if Canter engages in any potentially problematic interactions online and will","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"have the ability to conduct a more invasive search, including text messages and","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"e-mails, if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that Canter has violated the","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"terms of his custody. Thus, the present manner of enforcement of the conditions","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"by DOC is constitutional, but absent a formal policy to establish clear guidelines","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"that comport with these constitutional mandates, Canter’s experience of arbitrary","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"interpretation of conditions in violation of constitutional protections that shift upon","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"reassignment to a new CCO will likely be repeated with other supervisees also","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"subject to Internet monitoring conditions.","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"C. Vagueness and Right To Due Process","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"Finally, Canter asserts that the social media ban and enforcement of the","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"Internet monitoring condition violate his right to due process because they are","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"unconstitutionally vague. These allegations stem from the insistence of his past","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"CCOs that they have “Everything” access, rather than simply “Alerts,” and the total","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"prohibition on the use of social media. Again, both of these conditions have since","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"been modified by Ng. Canter accurately notes that the responsive briefing from","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"DOC does not engage with his due process argument or otherwise analyze the","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"issues presented in his case under the applicable constitutional standard.","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"The Fourteenth Amendment declares in relevant part that “[n]o state","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"Our State Supreme Court has long recognized that vagueness challengesFor the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/25","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"- 25 -","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"implicate due process under both the federal and state constitutions. See, e.g.,","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 752; City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 178, 795","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"P.2d 693 (1990); State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 264, 676 P.2d 996 (1984);","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"City of Seattle v. Pullman, 82 Wn.2d 794, 795, 514 P.2d 1059 (1973).","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"Our Supreme Court has identified several “overarching instances when a","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"court will declare a legal provision, such as a community custody condition,","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"unconstitutionally vague.” Padilla, 190 Wn.2d at 679. A condition must provide a","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"“‘person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what [behavior]","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"is prohibited.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"U.S. 104, 108 (1972)). Next, the condition must have “explicit standards” to","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"prevent “‘arbitrary and discriminatory’” enforcement by the supervising CCO. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"(quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108). Finally, a vague condition that “encroaches","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"on ‘sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms’ naturally inhibits the","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"exercise of those freedoms because individuals who are uncertain of the meaning","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"of a [condition] will steer ‘far wider’ than necessary in order to ensure compliance.”","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109).","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"The outright ban on social media use initially imposed on Canter clearly","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"implicates one of the instances identified in Padilla where a condition fails to","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"provide the “explicit standards” required to prevent precisely the arbitrary","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"enforcement Canter experienced as his supervision passed among three different","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"CCOs. Young and Watt maintained the ban, despite the trial court’s clarification","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"that its prohibition on the use of chat rooms did not include social media, and Ng","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"exercised his discretion in a completely distinct manner by lifting it.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/26","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"- 26 -","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"Separately, Canter asserts that the Internet monitoring conditions also fail","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"as unconstitutionally vague because of arbitrary enforcement. The materials","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"appended to his petition establish the extent of his efforts to understand the","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"contours of the A2U monitoring, both as to its ability to run on the operating","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"systems of different devices and the reasoning behind requiring “Everything”","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"access instead of “Alerts.” For example, when he contacted DOC by letter after","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"the trial court clarified its conditions in his J&S, ISRB Hearing Investigator Monika","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"Fields began her e-mail response to him with, “I feel like we have been over this","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"numerous times already” and, as to its screening of his text messages and e-mails,","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"simply answered that “[e-]mails and texts are often monitored for sexually explicit","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"material, and [A2U] screens for trigger words.” At oral argument before this court,","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"counsel for DOC acknowledged that, at least to a certain degree, its use of the","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"A2U “Everything” setting relies on some level of trust that the CCO will not access","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"the online detail reports to review the content of the supervisee’s e-mails or text","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"messages without reasonable suspicion of a community custody violation.21 DOC","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"apparently fails to appreciate, however, that it is precisely that reliance on “trust,”","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"rather than explicit policy guidelines, that renders the current Internet monitoring","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"scheme vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement as demonstrated by the highly","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"subjective discretionary decisions of Canter’s various CCOs with regard to the","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"degree of A2U monitoring to which he was subject. Further, Canter has also","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"provided A2U detail reports and correspondence between the software company","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"and his appellate counsel that establish innocent communications unrelated to any","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"21 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 17 min., 45 sec.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/27","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"- 27 -","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"risk of reoffense will trigger an alert to his CCO, no different than if he engaged in","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"conduct identical to that underlying his convictions in this case.22","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"D. Agency Guidance Required to Satisfy Narrow-Tailoring Requirement","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"and Prevent Arbitrary or Capricious Enforcement","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"The facts of Canter’s history of supervision highlight the necessity for DOC","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"to develop clear guidance for CCOs on the use of A2U, or any similar program, to","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"monitor Internet conditions imposed on supervisees convicted of sex offenses.","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"While we recognize the practical need to defer to the CCOs the interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"certain conditions and determination of how to best monitor compliance, unfettered","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"discretion can, as it did here, run afoul of the constitutional protections supervisees","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"still enjoy even after conviction and while under a degree of control by the State.","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"Arbitrary enforcement of conditions as occurred here violates the due process","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"rights of supervisees.","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"Separately, the A2U “Everything” setting, when used as a baseline of","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"supervision, does not comply with the constitutional requirements for narrow","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"tailoring due to the infringement on the fundamental rights of the supervisee.","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"Perhaps more critically, DOC must wrestle with the fact that A2U, and likely other","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"comparable programs, engage in the perpetual capture of electronic","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"communications by design even when placed in the “Alerts” setting and each of","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"those interceptions is no less a governmental intrusion on the free speech of the","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"22 In one of many examples Canter provided, A2U issued an alert based on e-mails with","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"his court-mandated sexual deviancy treatment provider, whose signature block contained the","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"words “Sex Offense Treatment and Assessment Programs, Washington State Department of","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"Corrections.” A2U presumably created a “Questionable Activity Report” based on the word “sex”","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"in the name of the DOC program listed in the therapist’s signature block.For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"No. 85969-2-I/28","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"- 28 -","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"person subject to supervision than any other suspicionless search. But, the","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"answer to the precise question presented by Canter’s PRP is clear: allowing a","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"CCO absolute discretion to view A2U’s suspicionless searches is a constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"violation.","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"Canter has carried his burden to demonstrate that his restraint is unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"because CCOs have unfettered discretion to view the data collected by A2U’s","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"suspicionless searches of Canter’s communications through its constant","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"acquisition and review of his text messages and e-mails in violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"constitutional protections addressed herein. Accordingly, the methods employed","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"by DOC to monitor the community custody conditions regarding Internet use and","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"communication are not narrowly tailored, and we grant Canter’s petition.","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"WE CONCUR:","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"_____________________________For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.","paragraph_id":"para_734"}],"word_count":8014,"cites":["582 U.S. 98","573 U.S. 464","319 U.S. 624","496 U.S. 310","458 U.S. 886","521 U.S. 844","408\nU.S. 104"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"f3da682b2642951ba96de0dd07a58e5a817c1e1e56f8e58de2c895ac7bbaaadb","source_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/859692.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-08T05:47:10.746+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","verification":{"stored_sha256":"f3da682b2642951ba96de0dd07a58e5a817c1e1e56f8e58de2c895ac7bbaaadb","recomputed_sha256":"f3da682b2642951ba96de0dd07a58e5a817c1e1e56f8e58de2c895ac7bbaaadb","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-11T09:45:39.455Z"}},"hash":"sha256:0a12593eedaa9898e18a21ee48b6d8903c2fec8f22cb1f6f9ea61bdda05f0f48","version":"legal-2026-10-11","expires":"2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T08:50:07","content_hash":"sha256:0a12593eedaa9898e18a21ee48b6d8903c2fec8f22cb1f6f9ea61bdda05f0f48","revalidate_after":"2026-10-11T10:45:39.625Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/washctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-fb37f91f41cf264f80fc1cad3e16d271","response_hash":"sha256:0a12593eedaa9898e18a21ee48b6d8903c2fec8f22cb1f6f9ea61bdda05f0f48"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:04:12.957Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Awashctapp-85969-2-2025-11-17&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":36967}}