11/25/2025
Internet Bans on Probation
The following are excerpts from the article “THE AIR WE BREATHE: INTERNET BAN IN PROBATION CONDITIONS-DALTON V. STATE by Kristen M. Renberg, PHD and Angela Sbano
“Now more than ever, Internet access is a lifeline—not a luxury. In Dalton v. State, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that a special condition of release requiring parole officer approval before the parolee may access the Internet was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.1 In its holding, the court quoted the parolee’s own plea against the condition, that the Internet “is ‘the air that we all breathe now.’”2This Comment addresses a growing disagreement among jurisdictions, with some identifying total Internet bans as a justified condition for parole or probation. At the crux of this disagreement are tens of thousands of supervised individuals who seek reintegration into society. This Comment argues that, in this modern era, banning a parolee from the Internet suffocates their ability to integrate back into society, essentially taking away the air that we breathe.”
“The balance of tailoring Internet restrictions has changed over the last twenty years, reflecting the Internet’s ever-growing importance to everyday life. The United States Supreme Court formally recognized this shift in Packingham v. North Carolina. 12 The Court considered a North Carolina statute making it a felony for registered s*x offenders to engage on social media platforms that allowed minors to make accounts on that website.13”
“ In United States v. Holena, 41 the Third Circuit recently vacated a probation condition that prohibited an individual from possessing or using computers, or otherwise accessing the Internet without his probation officer’s approval.42 The Third Circuit acknowledged the role the Internet had played in the individual’s underlying offenses, but nonetheless concluded that the Internet restriction was overbroad and unduly restrictive of liberty because it “gave the probation office no guidance on the sorts of [I]nternet use that it should approve.”43”
The article concludes as follows:
“Access to the Internet is a right, not a privilege. As trial courts continue to allow Internet restrictions as conditions of parole or probation, many jurisdictions across the United States are left grappling with how to strike a balance between the goal of deterrence and the protection of individual rights. The Court of Appeals of Alaska weighed into this ongoing debate in Dalton v. State, holding that a total Internet ban that requires prior approval from a parole officer before any and all Internet use is unconstitutionally broad. This decision broke from established precedent, and acknowledged that the Internet has become indispensable to living in and successfully reentering society today. It will be interesting to see if other courts follow this lead regarding special conditions.”
