The State of Washington v. Eric G. Bahl

Summary

The court held that Bahl could raise preenforcement vagueness challenges to his community-custody conditions because the claims were ripe and sentencing illegality may be raised for the first time on appeal. It invalidated as unconstitutionally vague the prohibitions on accessing or possessing pornographic materials and on possessing or controlling sexual-stimulus material for his particular deviancy, but upheld the prohibition on frequenting establishments whose primary business concerns sexually explicit or erotic material. The court reversed in part and remanded for resentencing. Sanders, J., concurring in the result, would also have invalidated the condition concerning establishments because its terms allegedly permit arbitrary enforcement.