Court Opinion

ID: 9632404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:13:38.96544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:14.786605
License: Public Domain

LEESON, J.,
concurring.
The majority is correct that the Board’s order is reviewable and that the Board failed to explain adequately why the condition that plaintiff not enter Lane County, where the minor victim resides, is necessary to achieve the purposes of ORS 144.096. I write only to underscore the statement that “[w]e do not hold that the Board cannot reach that conclusion.” 147 Or App 45 (emphasis in original). The facts in this case are egregious. The Board did not necessarily err in imposing the condition; it simply failed to provide a rational explanation of the nexus between the condition that plaintiff not enter Lane County and the purposes of the statute.