In Clifton v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that probation conditions requiring medication, cooperation with guardianship, and compliance with warrantless searches were decided under and improper standard of review, insufficiently supported, and determined to far out from the release date. After being convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault related to delusional incident, Clifton challenged several conditions of probation. The lower court imposed a number of special probation conditions at the time of sentencing. The appeals court reaffirmed that probation orders that require ingestion of medication are subject to special scrutiny and, even interpreted narrowly in light of the defendant’s case, cannot be imposed without a hearing including medically expert testimony, and that determinations should be made closer to the defendant’s date of release. Reasoning that divesting an individual of ordinary control of her life demands substantial procedural protections, the court also found the imposition of this condition both insufficiently supported and premature. Regarding the conditions requiring submission to warrantless searches, the court determined that the lower court had not found sufficient relationship between the conditions and the defendant’s criminal behavior to justify their imposition. Vacating multiple probation conditions, the court of appeals held that the conditions were imposed under improper standard of review, without the required supporting evidence, and too far out from the release date.
[1] 440 P.3d 300 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
