Court Opinion

ID: 9513629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:38:31.497627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:56.843341
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 12] Although I believe the State’s interest could be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of Aune’s freedom of intimate association, I am persuaded to concur in the result because the State’s infringement on Aune’s freedom of intimate relationship is limited to one location, 137 Avenue West in Dickinson, North Dakota, and will end at the termination of his probation. I, therefore, do not find this condition of probation unduly restrictive of Aune’s First Amendment right to intimate association. I do want to note, however, I do not agree with the majority’s use of State v. Sahr, 470 N.W.2d 185 (N.D.1991). That case involves the freedom of expressive association and the protection of abortion clinic employees and patients from unwanted contacts. Here, the condition of probation is directed at a location, Ms. Scholkowsky’s home, the perimeter of which has been the site of Aune’s crime of collecting junk and not at protecting Ms. Scholkowsky from unwanted contacts with Aune. The trial court could have drawn the probation condition to permit ingress and egress from her home.
[¶ 13] I concur in the result only.
[¶ 14] MARY MUEHLEN MARING.