Opinion ID: 2065953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Out-of-State Travel Restrictions on Probationers

Text: Three days after the trial justice granted summary judgment for defendants, Pelland's probationary period expired, and he no longer was subject to the out-of-state travel policy that he challenges. Indeed, the hearing justice expressed concern that the case before him might be moot, but chose to decide the case on the merits out of an abundance of caution. A case is considered moot if there was a justiciable controversy present when it began, but a change in circumstances leaves the litigant without a stake in the outcome. Cicilline v. Almond, 809 A.2d 1101, 1105 (R.I.2002). Because judicial power is at its weakest in the absence of a justiciable controversy, we will review moot cases only when the subject matter is of `extreme public importance' and the circumstances that gave rise to the initial controversy are capable of repetition while evading review. Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748, 752 (R.I.1997). There is no question that this appeal is moot because Pelland, no longer serving probation, is completely unaffected by the travel restrictions at issue. [8] The only question that remains for our consideration, then, is whether this is a matter of extreme public importance that is capable of repetition while evading review. See Sullivan, 703 A.2d at 752. Moot matters that we have found worthy of consideration have usually involved constitutional rights, [9] voting rights, or matters concerning a person's livelihood. Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d 1008, 1013 (R.I.2004). While we can see that the question of the circumstances under which sex offenders on probation may travel out of state is one of at least some public importance, and that it is a certainty that more sex offenders will be placed on probation and subject to the out-of-state travel restrictions challenged here, we cannot and do not conclude that this is an issue that will evade review. The length of probation imposed by the courts of this state ranges greatly  from a period of months to multiple decades. Thus, there exists no likelihood that the legal issues raised here will evade review. Therefore, we hold that Pelland's claim is moot, and not properly before this Court.