Aldape v. State

139 Nev., Advance Opinion 'IQ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTONIO CRUZ ALDAPE, No. 83622
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, FiLED
Respondent.

,EF DEPUTi CLERK

Appeal from a judgment of conviction, enteied pursuant to a
guilty plea, of two counts of attempted lewdness with a child under 14.
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johns'on, Judge.
Affirrned in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Darin Imlay, Public Defender, and Katherine E. Sitsis and Nadia Hojjat
Wood, Chief Deputy Public Defenders, Clark County,
for Appellant.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City; Steven B, Wolfson, District
Attorney, Jonathan VanBoskerck, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and Elan
Adam Eldar, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, I
for Respondent.

Christopher M. Peterson, Las Vegas, and Randolph M. Fiedler, Las Vegas,
for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Nevada
Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.'

'The Honorable Douglas W. Herndon, Justice, is disqualified from
participation in the decision of this matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
73- 3irar
(0) 19,47A
 OPINlON
By the Court, PICKERING, J.:
Appellant Antonio Aldape pleaded no contet to two counts of
attempted lewdness with a child. The district court placed him on probation
and imposed the special condition mandated by NRS 176A.410(1)(q), which
prohibits any defendant who is on probation for a sexual offense from
accessing the internet or possessing a device capable of accessing the
internet without their probation officer's permission. On appeal„Aldape
challenges the mandatory internet ban on First Amendment grounds. He
argues that it fails intermediate scrutiny because a categorical.prohibition
on internet access by any probationer convicted of a sex offense is not
narrowly tailored to the risk of online predatory behavior the indi.vidual
probationer rnay pose. We agree and reverse the judgment aS to the
probation condition banning access to the internet. We otherwise affirm
and, in doing so, reject Aldape's separate challenge to the additional
probation condition forbidding him frorn visiting places such as playgrounds
and schools that primarily cater to children.
I.
Aldape pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400
U.S. 25 (1970), to two counts of attempted lewdness with a child under 1.4
for interactions with his step-granddaughter, V.I. The interactions occurred
at Aldape's home and did not involve other children or the internet. The
plea *agreement permitted Aldape to substi.tute a guilty plea to two counts
of sexually motivated coercion upon successful completion of probation and
waived Aldape's right to a "direct appeal of [the] conviction." When the
district court canvassed Aldape before accepting his plea, it asked Aldape if
he understood that he was "waiving, that is giving up[,] Your right to a jurY
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) 1447A
2
 trial and all the other rights I've just d.iscussed and the rights that are set
out and mentioned in your Guilty Plea Agreement[.1" The court did not ask
any questions specific to the appeal waiver.
Aldape was adjudged guilty and given a suspended aggregate
prison term of 8 to 20 years, with probation not to exceed 5 years. His
judgment of conviction imposed the two probation conditions he now
challenges: specia]. conditien 15, which prohibits Aldape from accessi.ng the
internet or possessing a device that can access the internet; -and special
condition 11, which prohibits Aldape from-being "in or near" playgrounds,
parks, schools, and businesses that primarily cater to children. Aldape
challenged both conditions in district court on substantially the same
grounds he raises on appeal. The district court rejected Aldape's challenges,
and this appeal timely followed.
II. .
As a threshold issue, the State argues that Aldape waivcid his
right to appeal the conditions of his' probation pursuant to the section- of his
Plea agreement waiving hiš "right to a direct appeal of this cenViction." In
evaluating appeal waiver claims, Courts consider "whether: (1) the appeal
falls within -the scope of the waiver; (2) both the waiVer and plea agreement
were entered into knowingly and voluntarily; and (3) enforcing the waiver
would . . . result in a miscarriage of justice." United States v.- Adams, 1.2
F.4th 883, 888 (8th Cir. 2021); United States-v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325
(10th .Cir. 2004) (en banc); see Burns v. State, 137 Nev.. 494, 499-500, 495 •
P.3d 1.091, 1099-1100 (2021).. Although • the. parties address 'all three

criteria, we only need to discuss the first—the scope of the waiver: In- the
plea Agreement, Alclape waived the right to appeal his conviction; not his
sentence or the probation conditions Associated with his sehtence. We

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(fp I947A
 therefore conclude that Aldape's appeal may proceed because his challenges
to his probation conditions fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. See
Garza u. Idaho, 586 U.S. _ , . 139 S. Ct. 738, 744 (2019) ("As courts
widely agree, a valid and enforceable appeal waiver only precludes
challenges that fall within its scope.") (internal quotations omitted).
Contract principles apply to plea agreements, Burns, 137 Nev.
at 496, 495 P.3d at 1097, and to appeal waivers in plea agreements, see
Garza, 586 U.S. at , 139 S. Ct. at 744. A plea agreement. is enforced as
written, Burns, 137 Nev. at 497, 495 P.3d at 1097, "according to what the
defendant reasonably understood when he or she entered the plea,"
Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383, 387, 990 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1999). In the
appeal waiver context, given the important rights at stake, the State "bears
the burden of proving that the plea agreement clearly and unambiguously
waives a defendant's right to appeal." Adams, 12 F.4th at 888. Ambiguities
as to the scope of the waiver are construed against the State as the drafter
of the plea agreement. Id.; see Burns, 137 Nev. at 497, 495 P.3d at 1098.
The appeal waiver clause in Aldape's plea agreement did not
refer to his sentence or probation conditions. It stated that he waived his
right to appeal his conviction:
By entering my plea of guilty, I. understand
that I am waiving and forever giving up the
following rights and privileges:

(6) The right to appeal the conviction with the
assistance of an attorney, either appointed or
retained, unless specifically reserved in writine- and
agreed upon as provided in NRS 174.035(3). I
understand this means I arn unconditionally
waiving my right to a direct appeal of this
conviction, including any ch.allenge based upon.
reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional or other
SUPREME COURT
OF
N EVADA

(0) I947A
4
 grounds that challenge the legality of the
proceedings as stated. in NRS 1.77.015(4). However,
I remain free to challenge my conviction through
other post-conviction remedies including a habeas
corpus petition pursuant to. NRS Chapter 34.
(emphases added). As Aldape argues, the words "conviction" and "sentence"
mean two different things. "Conviction" denotes guilt: "The act or process
of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been
proved guilty" or "Nile judgment (as by a jury verdict) that a person is guilty
of a crime." Conviction, Black's Law Dictionary .(11th ed. 2019). "Sentence,"
by contrast, means "Mlle judgment that a court formally pronounces after
finding a criminal defendant guilty; the punishment imposed on a criminal
wrongdoer." Sentence, id.
The State argu.es that Aldape's appeal waiver covers the
probation conditions imposed at time of sentencing, citing United States v.
Wells, 29 F.4th 580 (9th Cir. 2022)., and •United States v. Holzer, 32 F.4th
875 (10th Cir. 2022), as• support. But n close reading, Wells and Holzer
support Aldape's position, not the State's. Unlike Aldape's appeal waiver,
which only referenced his conviction, the waivers in Wells and Hazer
applied to both the conviction and the sentence. Thus, in Wells, the waiver
stated: "I agree to give up my right to appeal the judgment and all orders of
the court. I also agree to give up my right to appeal any Ospect of My
sentence," 29 F.4-th at 584 (emphasis added), while in-Holzer, the defendant
waived "the right to appeal any matter in connection with this prosecution;
conviction, or sentence," 32 F.4th at 880 (emphasis added). The defendants
in Wells and Holzer could not appeal their supervised release conditions
because the conditions are an aspect of sentencing, which their- appeal
waivers covered. Wells, 29 F.4th at 584 (noting that an Appeal waivers
"reference to 'any aspect of the sentence' unambigu.ousiy encompassed
 supervised release terms") (internal quotation omitted); see Holzer,'32 F.4th
at 882; accord United States v. Andis, 333 .li1.3d 886, 893 n..7 (8th Cir. 2003).
Most reported cases consider appeal waivers that, like those in
Wells and Holzer, apply to both conviction and sentence. But in cases where
the appeal waiver is not specific, or only references the conviction, courts
have held• that appeals challenging the sentence or conditions of supervised
release fall outside the appeal waiver and can proceed.. See, e.g., Williams
v. Indiana,. 164 N.E,3d 724, 725 (Ind. 2021)- (alloWing the defendant to
appeal his sentence where the appeal waiver did riot specificallÿ preclud.e i.t
and noting that "the plea agreement, guilty plea and sentencing hearing
colloquy, and sentencing order must be clear arid consistent as to whether
the defendant waives only the right to appeal the conViction or the right to
appeal the conviction and sentence");-Kansas v. Patton, 195 P.3d 758, 771
(Kan. 2008) (declining to construe an a.ppeal waiver aSprecluding An'appeed
of a sentencing decision where the waiver did not. exPlicifly refer to the
sentence); cf. Garza, 586 U.S. at & n.5,* 139 S. Ct. at. 744 & .n.5 (citing
Patton and referencing other. examples of appeal waiVers that alle-oied
challenges to the sentence); United States v. Pam, 867 17.3d 1191., 1201 (loth
Cir. 2017) (holding that a waiver .of collateral attack to the cOnvictiori does
not include attacks on the sentence), abrogated on 'other grounds.by Borden
v.. United States, U.S. • * , 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). And this*Is•
Given the difference in meaning between "conviction" and "sentence," a
defendant signing an agreement .that waives the right. to.- appeal the
conviction would not logically understand it to preolude appeal Of probation
condition§ imposed later, at tinie ofsentencirig. See Williams, 164 *N.E.3d
at 725. This is ešpecially true where, as here, the plea agreeinent. did *not
bind the district court td a particular sentence and the deferidarit was. not
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) I947A
6
 canvassed about the appeal waiver's scope. See Sullivan, 115 Nev. at 387,
990 P.2d. at 1260 (construing plea agreement according to what a defendant
reading it would reasonably understand).
Shifting focus, the State argues that Aldape gave up his right
to appeal his probation conditions because he waived the right to challenge
the legality of the proceedings in the appeal waiver. But in making this
argument, the State misquotes the text of the appeal waiver clause—Aldape
waived his •"right to a direct- appeal of this conviction, including any
challenge based upon reasonable constitutional. . grounds that challenge
the legality of the . proceedings." (emphasis added). The State omits the
italicized language—"of this conviction, including"--which grainniatically
ties what follows the word "including" to its antecedent, "this conviction."
The appeal waiver's reference to "the legality of the proceedings" does not
expand the word "conviction" to include sentencing ann release conditions.
Cf. People u. ÐeVaughn, 558 P.2d 872, 875 (Cal. 1977) (construing the
phrase to mean "the legality of the proceedings resulting in the plea"). At
hest, the phrase introduces an ambiguity, which is resolved. against the
State. See Burns, 137 Nev. at 497, 495 P.3d •at 1098. The 'State S final
point—that we should construe "conviction" to include 'sentence" because
NRS 1.76.1.05 requires both for a "judgment of conviction"--also fails as .a
niatter of contract construction. The appeal waiver used the word
"conviction," not the phrase "judgment of conviction." .As the drafter of the
plea agreement, the State is bound by the plain meaning of thé,.wordsit,
used, and those words do not preclude this appeal.
111.
If a district court grants probation-to a defendant convicted of a
sexual Offense as defined in NRS 1.79D.097, it must impose• the probation
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVAOA

I947A
7
 conditions enumerated in NRS 176A.410(1)., including subsection (q), which
requires that the defendant "[nlot possess any electronic d.evice capable of
accessing the Internet and not access the Internet through any such device
or any other means, unless possession of such a device or such access is
approved by the [defendant's] probation officer." The dist.rict court
incorporated subsection (q) verbatim as special condition 15 of Aldape's
probation. On appe.al, Aldape challenges the constitutionality of subsection
(q) and special condition 15 under the First Amendment. Although we
review a district court's discretionary imposition of a prebation condition for
an abuse of discretion, Igbinovia. v. State, 111 Nev. 699, 707, 895 P.2d 1304,
1309 (1995), the constitutionality of a statutorily mandated probation
condition presents a question of law to which de novo review applies, see
Mangarella v. State, 11.7 Nev. 130, 1.33-.36, 17 P.3d 989, 991-93 (2001).
A.
The internet affords a First Amendment forum of historically
-
unimaginable reach. "A fundamental principle of the First Amen.dmentis
that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and
then, after reflection, speak and listen once inOre." Packingham v..North
Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 104. (2017). Today, that place is'cyberspace—the
vast democratic forums of the Internet." Id. (internal qu.otation omitted).
In Packingharn, the Supreme Court struck down a North
Carolina statute that made it a felonY for a registered sex offender to access
social media sites like Facebook that children frequent. Packingharn
recognized for the first time a broad First Amendment right to 'internet
aCcess, inclusive Of individuals who 'had been convicted of and served their
sentences for serious sex offenses. Id. at• 108. While that right Could :be
abridged by "specific, narrowly tailored laws". aimed at ''condUCt that often

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

I947A •
8
 presages a sexual crime," it could not be snuffed out by North Carolina's
"sweeping" statute •without a showin.g that its breadth was necessary to
"keep[ ] convicted sex offenders away from vulnerable victims." ld. at 107.
The State would limit the rights recognized in Packingharn to
people who, unlike Aldape, have completed their sentence and are no longer
under court-supervised release. Probationers "do not enjoy the absolute
liberty to which every citizen is entitled," Griffin u. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868,
874•(1987) (internal quotations omitted), and "plust as other punishments
for criminal Convictions curtail an offender's freedoms, a court granting
probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of
some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens," United States v. Knights,
534 U.S. 112, 1.1.9 (2001). For these reasons, on a continuum ra.nging from
incarceration to release following completion of sentence, defendants on
probation '`enjoy less freedom than those who have finished serving their
entences." United States u. Holena, 906 F.3d 288, 295 (3d Cir: 2018). But
that does not mean that the First Amendment right to internet aCceSs
recognized in Packingharn 'has no application to probationers. While a
probationer's First Amendment rights may be restricted, under
Packinghani those restrictions must be narrowly tailored with a vieW to the
goals of supervised release--"deterring crime, prote6ting the public, [and]
rehabilitating the defendant." Icl:; see United States u. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88,
97 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying.Packingharn and hOlding that "the imposition of
a total Internet ban as a Condition of supervised l'elease inflids a severe.
deprivation of liberty" that can only be justified in "highly.. unusual
circumstances"); People u, Morger, 160 N.E.3d 53, 69 (Ill. 2019) (invalidating
a statutorily mandated • probation condition banning • social media accesS
under Packingharn).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) 1947A
9
 The State cites United States u. Carson, 924 F.3d. 467, 473 (8th
Cir. 2019), United States . v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 658 (5th Cir. 2018),
and United States v. Rock, 863 F.3d 827, 831 (D.C. Cir. 2017), as support for
limiting Packingham to people who have finished serving their sentences.
These opinions evaluated internet restrictions discretionarily imposed by
the sentencing court as conditions of their court-supervised release. Since
the defendan.ts in the cited cases did not raise their First Amendment
challenges in district court, their appeals Were' decided on plain error
review, a deferential standard requiring that -the district Court -commit a.
legal error that is "clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
dispute." Halverson, 897 F.3d at 657; see Carson, 924 F.3d at 473, Rock,
863 F.3d at 831. By contrast, Aldape preserved his First: Amendment
challenge to subsection (q) and. special condition 15. i.n district court, so our
review is de novo, not for plain error. While the differen.ce in the defendants'
,supervision status 'sufficiently distinguished Packingham to prevent
reversal for plain error in Carson, Halverson., an.d Rock, that difference does
not limit Packingharn's application on de novo review: •
Finally, and most importantly, in applying the I. n st

Amendment to 21st century norms, Packingham formalized an undeniable
truth--there is simply no way to participate in modern' society Without
internet access or a "device capable of accessing the Internet". That fact
does not ch.ange, and perhaps becomes even more salient, when applied to
people under active'court supervision. It would, for exaniple, be hopelesslY
difficult to meet with one's probation officer without using a cell phone to
make the appointment, get directions, arrange tranSportation, and set
reminders. Then there are the rehabilitative steps: fin.dii-ig a job, renting a
home, communicating with family and friends, and civic • participation all

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

4r9SZ4p,
10
144i 1 4).17A
 often require an internet connection. See Packingharn, 582 U.S. at 108
("Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted
criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to
the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform, and to pursue lawful.
and rewarding lives."). And one could avoid interactions with "internet-
connected devices" only by never leaving the home--but even there, th.e
television, phone, speakers, and appliances all pose a threat. It makes little
sense to differentiate by supervision statuš a -constitutionally protected
right to access. these everyday necessities when Modern life makes no .such
distinctions.
Packingharn therefore assists us in holding that 'the First
Amendment protects the right of court supervisees; including Aldape, to
access the internet.
B.
When a government 'imposes a Content-neutral restrictidn
speech or conduct protected by the F'irst AmendMent, apPly
intermediate scrutiny to evaluate whether the restriction is "narrowl.y
tailored to serve .a significant government interest" and "leaves 'open ample
. alternative channels for communication." Ward v. Rock . Against ,Racistn,
491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); see Packingharn, 582 U.S. at 105-06. Because NRS
176A.410(1)(q) restricts the time, place, and manlier of a probationer's
access to the• internet and is otherwise neutral as to the . &intent of a-gy
expressions made therein, intermediate scrutiny -applieS. See Wa.rd, :491
U.S. at 791 (noting that "a regulation thatserves purposes unrelated to the.
content of expression is deemed neutral," including time; place, Or manner
restrictions): In such circumstances, the State "bears the burden of proving
the constitutionality of its actions." 'Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y.,

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) 19,I7A
11
 Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 170 (2002) (Breyer, J., concurring)
(quoting United States v.• Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 808, 816
(2000)).
The State undoubtedly has a significant interest in protecting
the public from online conduct that constitutes or "presages a sexual crime."
Packingharn, 582 U.S. at 107.2 The parties agree on that much but diverge
as to whether and how narrowly subsection (q) is tailored to that goal.
The State argues that subsection (q) is • necessary to pre-nt
every person convicted of a sexual offense frcm getting online 'because they
are both more likely to recidivate than other offenders. an.d more li.kely to do
so online. But even assuming the State's data to that effect are true,
subsection (q) does not "alleviate th[o]se harms in a direct and material
way," as is required by narrow tailoring. Turner Broad. Sys., Ine. V: Fed.
Cornmc'ns Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994); The categork of '0,exual
offenses" includes everything from public indecency to violent Assaults t;.)
production of pornography. NRS 176A.410(7), NRS .179D.097. it is illogical
that each sexual offender, regardless .of crime, rehabilitative needs, history
of internet usage, or victim, pOses an equally grave threat Online, And-the
State cannot enact such. a sweeping prohibition based on: grneraiiZationS.
See PaCkingham, 582 U.S. At 108 (concluding that North Call •olina failed to
show the "sweeping law" at issue was necessary or legitimate to. serve "its

2This court has long recogni.zed an equally significant government
interest in the defendant's rehabilitation: See Mangarella, 11_7 Nev. (.:11;137,
1.7 P.3d- at 993 (stating that probation conditions must be. "reasonably
related to rehabilitation or the health, safety or welfare of the coinmunity");
Seim. v. State, 95 Nev. 89, 93, 590 P.2d 1152, 1154 (1979) ("[T]he' broad
objective of • probation is rehabilitation with .incidental pub1ic safety,
and. the conditions of probation should further provide th s objective.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

12
10) 1 V)17A •-•403.,
 preventative purpose of keeping convicted sex offenders away from
vulnerable victims");. Morger, 160 N.E.3d at 69 (addressing Packingharn's
conclusion that "Nile broad ban of the laW could not be sustained solely on
the ground that it protected the public against sex offenders").
This is not to say that a court cannot, in an appropriate case,
limit internet access by a person convicted of a sexual. offense. Broad

restrictions on internet access may be justified "where (1) the defendant
used the internet in the 'underlying offense; (2) the defe.ndant had a history
of iniproperly using the internet to engage in illegal. conduct; or
(3) particular and identifiable characteristics of the defendant suggested
that such a restriction was warranted." United State3 v. Perazza-Mercado,
553 F.3d 65, 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (collecting cases); see United :States v.
Albertson, 645 F.3d 191, 197 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that a comPlete ban "will
rarely be sufficiently tailored"). In these scenarios, a broad internet ban is
necessary because the supervisee's individual traits pose an equally broad
threat. See, e.g., Albertson, 645 F.3d at 197-200 (noting that a broad ban
may be "imposed temporarily on those 'offenders who have used or have
clearly demonstrated a willingness to use the internet as a direct
instrument of physical harrn" and invalidating the irnpositio.n of such a ban
On a supervisee convicted of possessing child pornography); United States v.
johnson, 446 F.3d 272,. 282-83 (2d Cir. 2006) (concluding that'a complete
ban was justified by a supervisee?s "sophisticated cornpUter us[age]" and
skills in. "circumventing the software needed for moriitoring' after his
conviction for using the internet .to Contact and lure minors); Holenct,.906
F.3d at 292 (invalidating a blanket internet ban'imposed as a' Condition a
supervised release but noting that, where a defendant used the internet to
solicit a child for sex, "it is almost certainly appropriate to. prevent [thernl

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

101 1947A .ti r.50
13
 from using social media, chat rooms, peer-to-peer file-sharing services, a.nd.
any site where he could interact with a c.hild" and to "consider the efficacy
of filtering and rnonitoring softWare"). The problem with subsection (q) is
not that an internet ban can never be applied; it is that it cannot
mandatorily be applied to every person convicted of a sexual offense without
the sentencing court considering the individualized factors that would
justify such a ban.
Nor does subsection (q) permit the 'sentencing court to *tailor
internet restrictións to prevent only that "First Amendment acti.vity [that
is] necessary to protect anyone from misconduct that is a consequence of
internet use." Mutter • v. Ross, 81.1 S.E.2d 866, 871 (W. Va. 2018)
(invalidating a condition of parole similar to the probation condition
mandated by subsection (q)). Tailoring a condition .of supervision to the
individual empowers the sentencing court to serve the government's
in.terests i.n supervision while respecting the su.pervisee's extant
constitutional rights. The court thereby restricts only those aspects of th.e
d.efendant's FirSt Amendment rights iniplicated by their crim.e of conviction
and threat to the community, rather than "treat[ingi individu.als wh.o
commit a sex offense as though they • are• highly soPhisticated, Online
extortionists" or Prohibiting economic, political, or interpersbnal speech
online that poses no threat of sexual misconduct. Jacob Hutt, Offline: •
Challenging Internet and Social Media'Bans for Individuals on SuperbiSion
for Ser Offense's, 43 N.Y.U. ReV. L. &Soc. Change 663, 67786 (2019) (noting
that internet restrictions run afoul of the First Amendment. when they
target the "wrong people" Or the "Wrong speech."). Our sister courts and.the
federal government have solved. this .nroblem by im.posing statutory or
common law guidelines for tailoring internet restricti.ons on sUpervisees.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(114 I947A
14
 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D) (requiring that
conditions of super6sed release be "reasonably related" to the defendant's
offense and rehabilitation, need for deterrence, and. community safety); 18
U.S.C. § 3583(4) (requiring that conditions "involveH no greater
deprivation of liberty than. is reasonably necessary"); Morger, 160 N.E.3d at
60 (invalidating as facially unconstitutional a statute imposing a blanket
social media ban on probationers convicted of sexual offenses, while
adknowledging more narroWly tailored measures that could achieve • the
same protective and rehabili.tative objectives); Weida v. State, 94 N.E13d.
682, 690 (Ind.. 2018): (requiri.ng that probation conditions be "reasOnably
related to rehabilitating the probationer and protecting the Oublic"); see
Dalton v.. State, 477 P.3d 650, 651 (Ala.ska Ct. App. 2020) (applying "special
scrutiny" to "probation conditions that infringe constitutional rights");
Pozili v. Commonwealth, 835 S.E.2d 87, 94 (Va. Ct. App. 2019) (invalidating
an internet ban where the record did- not show that the internee played
role in the crime and the sentencing court did not arti.culate hOw the broad
restriction. "would serve any rehabilitative or public purPose").
By. contrast, Nevada apPearS to be the only state in the nation •
that statutorily mandates its Sentencing courts to impose an identical and
total internet ban on even/ defendant who is granted prObation 'after:being
convicted of a. sexual offense, without regard for the nature cif -the
defendant's crime of conviction, internet Usage history, of threat to Online
users. See HUM supra, at 681 n.92-and accompanying text (collecting state
statutes th t impose internet bans, none of Which is a.s broad aS.subsection.
(q)). This breadth would h.ave been less- remarkable in 2001., when the
statute was first added- and the First Ainendment irnplicatiorrs.of internet
connectivity had-not yet matured.. But the internet.haS since evelved into
SUPREME COURT
OF

NEVADA

(>1 19,I7A
15
 an essential public forum, while subsection (q) has gone unamended. See
Hutt, supra, at 667 n.17 (collecting scholarship examining Packingharn's
"treatment of the Internet as a public foru.m"). As evidenced by the rigorou:s
tests placed 6n such restrictions in the interim, the statute has become
fatally outmoded.
The State argues that subsection (q) is adequately tailored
because (1) Aldape is only subject to the condition for five years; (2) the
district court dan modify the • conditions under "extraordinary

cirCumstances," NRS 176A.410(6); and (3) AldaPe Can'access the internet .or
connected devices with the prior approval of his probation officer? NRS
176A.410(1)(q). But because Aldape challenges the facial validity of the
statute, its finite application to him does not change the analysis. And the
phrase "extraordinary circumstances" denotes "a highly unusual set of facts
that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event."
Extraordinary Circumstances, Black's Law Dictionaoi (11th ed: 2019).
Confining the court's discretion to •only extraordinary circunistances does
p.ot permit the tailoring necesSary to save the statute's constitutionality.
Other courts have spoken directly and' convincinglY 'about the
dangers of entrusting the constitutionality of a statute to the sole discraikin
of nonjudicial officers. See, e.g., Holena, 906 F.3d at 293 (finding fa.ult With
the district court offering "no guidance on the sorts of internet use" that the
probation office should approve); United States b. Ramos,.769 F.3c1. 45, 61
(1st Cir. 2014) (finding that such permission "does not immunize the ban
from an inquiry that evaluates the justification for the ban in the first
instance"); Doe v. elindal, 853 F. SuPp. 2d 596, 604 (M.D. La. 2012)
permission inadequate becau.se the z--:tatute did "not define. the 'standards to
be .used in evaluating the requests for an exemption"); Dalton, 477 P.M. At

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

if) 47A
16
 653 (recognizing that under more recent jurisprudence, prior approval "is
not a sufficient safeguard for First Amendment rights in this context"); cf.
J.I. u. NJ. State Parole Bid., 1.55 A.3d 1008, 1023 (N.J. 2017) (stating that
the justification for internet restrictions must be based on "more than the
caprice of a parole officer") (internal quotations omitted). The approval
escape valve cannot save the statute's constitutionality, particularly
without any guidelines on. how and when it applies.
Aldape's case is the perfect example of the iinpropriety• of a
blanket internet ba.n. His -victim was a family member who lived with or
near him, and the record does not demonstrate any predatory online
behaviors that. would justify a gen.eralized internet rastrictioh. Because
NRS 176A.410(1)(q) is both mandatory and restricts more speech than
necessary to serve the government's interest with. no tailoring mechanism,
and the State fails its burden to show otherwise, it is facially
unconstitutional under the Fi.rst Arnendment.3 .
Iv.
Aldape also challen.ges speci.al probation condition .11, which
reads:
Unless approved by the Parole and Probation
Officer assigned to •the Defendant and by a
•

psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor treating the
Defendant, if any, [the Defendant must] not be in
or near:
1. a playground, park, school or school grounds.

3We do not address the State's request. that •we instruct the district
court to determine whether a narrower internet restriction. should be
imposed under its discretionary authority in NRS 176A.400, because it is
not adequately briefed. This is a matter for the State to a.d.dress to the
district court in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

4.0) I947A 4414.
 2. a motion picture theater, or
3. a business that primarily has children as
customers or conduct:3 events that primarily
children attend.
He argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing this
condition pursuant to NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3) because it mirrors a
mandatory condition imposed on Tier III offenders pursuant to NRS
176A.410(1)(m), but he is only a Tier II offender. That subsection (m) is
mandatory for Tier Hi offenders, however, does not impede the district
court's discretion to irnpose similar cenditioi[i under NRS

176A.400(1)(c)(3), permitting any reasonable condition "prohibiting the
probationer from entering certain geographic areas."
The district court's imposition of a nonmandatory condition of
probation i.s reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Igbinovia,.1.11 Nev. at 707,
895 P.2d at 1309. but questions of statutory interpretatioi are reviewed de
novo, State v. Lucero, 127 NeV. 92, 95, 249 P.3d 1226, 1228 (2011).
"[S]tatutory provisions of the probation scheme must be sjictlY construed,'
.1gbinovia, 111 Nev. at 710, 895 13,2d at 1311, including any Penal. statutes
that "negatively impact a defendant," Mangarella, 117 Ne‘t at 134, 17•P.3d
at 992. A.ny "[d]iscretionary powers of the district coult .accorded by a
)
statutory grant of authority must be interpreted liberally. ! IgbinOvia, 111
Nev. at 710, 895 P.2d at 1311.
To resolve Aldape's arguMent that the -distriClt court bkceeded
its atithority •ander NRS 176A.410(1)(M)- -becaUse it iMposed on him 4
condition meant only for Tier 111 offènders, we reView stibsection (in) de
novo. Aldape's challenge is easily answered by'the statu.te'c. Plain language.
See Ramoi; v. State, 137 Nev.. 721, 722, 499 P.3d 1178, 1180 (2021) ("{Wje
•
first look to the statute's plain language to determine its meaning, and we
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

•18
(E) 1947A
will enforce it as written if the l.anguage is clear and unambiguous."). When
read in conjunction svith the sentence stein in NRS V6A.410(1), subsection
(m) provides, "[T]he court shall... order as a condition of probation or
suspensiOn of sentence that the defendant . . . not knowingly be Within . 500
feet of any place...that is designed primar0 for use by or for
children. . The provisions of this paragraph apply only to a defendant
who is a Tier III offender." (emphasis add.ed). The Meaning i.s clear—if the
defend.ant is a Tier III offender, the Court must impoSe sUbsection (in). The
converse propOsition is that the court is not required to impose subsection
(m) if the defendant is a non-Tier III offender, not that the court cannot
impose the restriction on non-Tier III offenders. Therefore, condition 11•is
not prohibited by NRS 176A.410(1)(m).
Even so, condition 11 must be a proper exercise of the district
court's discretion under NRS 176A.400, reviewed for an abuse of diScretion.
NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3) permits the imposition of any reaSonable conditions
•
including, without limitation, "[p]rohibiting the .probationer from entering
a certain geographic area." Given this broad languge and our obligation
to liberally interpret the discretionary powers of the .district court, see
Igbinovia, 111 Név. at 710, 895 P.2d at 1.311, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion becau.se it is reasonable -to restrict 'ana.dult
convicted of a sexual offense involving a child from areas where -children
commonly are found. We do not reach Aldape's argunient that condition n
violates his First Amendment rights because he did Inot present, a Cogent
argument to that effect in his Opening brief; see Powell v. Liberty Mut-Fire
Ins. Co., 1.27 Nev. 156, 161 n.3; 252 P.3d 668, 672 n,3 (2011) ("Issues not.
raised in an appellant's opening brief are deemed witived."), although Sve
note that similar restrictions are regularly upheld aVainst constitutional

19
 challenges wh:en reasonable, see, e.g., Unitecl States v. Senke, 986 F.3d 300,
318-19 (3d Cir. 2021); United States u. MaeMillen, 544 F.3d 71, 75 (2d Cir.
2008).
Therefore, the diStrict court permissibly imposed condition 11
on Aldape, both as a matter of statutory interpretation and pursuant to the
discretion granted under NRS 176A.400.
CONCLUSION
Because Aldape's appellate waiver did not preclude challenges
to the conditions of his probation, and because subsection (q) is facially
unconstitutional, we reverse and remand to the district court to remove
condition 15, restricting Alda.pe's access to the internet and: internet-
connected devices, from the judgment of con.viction. We otherwise affirm
the district court's convicti.on, including the imposition of condition 11
restricting Aldape's entry into specific geographic areas, pursuant to NRS
176A.400.

&OA , j.

Pickering

We concur:

___04e4auf) , C.J.
Stiglich Cadish

Lee Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

, ) 1947,A
20