MAY, J.
. . . Peterson pled guilty to Class C felony child molesting. He was sentenced to seven years, with three years suspended to probation. [Footnote omitted.] The conditions of his probation included:
(YOU SHALL)
* * * * *
. . . .
* * * * *
13. Submit to a . . . sex offender . . . assessment/evaluation by a treatment facility approved by your Probation Officer. You will satisfactorily comply with the recommendations set forth in the assessment.
. . . .
In June 2005, Peterson began treatment with Jodi Redick-Battle at the Center for Mental Health. Peterson signed the Center for Mental Health’s “Treatment Contract.” The treatment contract lists thirteen requirements for participating in the sex offender treatment program, which include:
4. I will be required, during the course of treatment, to undergo either voice stress tests or polygraphs at my expense whenever requested by my therapist.
* * * * *
6. I am not permitted to rent, purchase or use pornography or any other sexually explicit materials while I am in treatment. This includes but is not limited to internet pornography websites, pornographic or sexually explicit movies, books or magazines, telephone sex lines, strip bars or any other sexually oriented products or services.
On August 30, 2007, Peterson submitted to a polygraph examination. Mark J. James completed a report that included a transcript of the questions and answers. Based on the report, a notice of probation violation was filed on September 21, 2007. It alleged Peterson . . . violated Condition 13 by having contact with children, viewing pornography and x-rated movies, and visiting a strip club . . . .
Lynn Fishburn, a supervisor in the Probation Department, testified that Peterson was required to sign a treatment contract with the Center for Mental Health and was required to submit to polygraph examinations. During Fishburn’s testimony, the State
offered into evidence James’ report of the polygraph examination, which states in relevant part:
8. Have you viewed or had in your possession any sexually arousing material e.g., but not limited to, videos, adult movies, magazines, personal contact materials, books, internet web sites, games, sexual devices or aids, or any materials related to illegal or deviant behaviors? Answer: Yes, I’ve watched HBO erotica movies a couple of hundred times. The last time was a couple of weeks ago. I will watch them for a few minutes, (10 to 15) and sometimes I will masturbate to them.
I’ve also seen x-rated movies about 5 to 6 times; the last time was a couple of weeks ago.
* * * * *
10. Have you accessed the internet by using a computer, television, or cell phone? Answer: Yes, I look at pornography about two to three times a week, and I will masturbate to it.
(State’s Ex. 2) (emphasis in original).
….
. . . Because probation revocation procedures “are to be flexible, strict rules of evidence do not apply.” . . .The trial court may consider hearsay “bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.” . . . Hearsay is admissible in this context if it “has a substantial guarantee of trustworthiness.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 441 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied. . . . .
In Reyes, our Supreme Court held that ideally, a trial court should explain on the record why the hearsay is reliable. 868 N.E.2d at 442. Peterson notes the trial court offered no explanation, but acknowledges the record suggests the court found Exhibit 2 reliable based on Redick-Battle’s testimony. We agree, and therefore we will address whether Redick-Battle’s testimony demonstrates the evidence is sufficiently reliable.
Redick-Battle testified she viewed the video of the polygraph examination and indicated the transcript prepared by James matched what she saw. Peterson suggests the video might be inaccurate or incomplete; however, we conclude that suggestion, without more, does not undermine the reliability of the exhibit. [Footnote omitted.] While it would be relatively easy to produce a false or misleading document that purports to be a transcript of the polygraph examination, it is much more difficult to create a video that appears to show Peterson admitting to viewing pornography and x-rated movies on numerous occasions when in fact he said only that he had seen some pop-ups on the computer. It is even more unlikely that the video could be so cleverly made that it would thoroughly fool someone who had been treating Peterson for over two years. Redick-Battle’s comparison of Exhibit 2 to the video was sufficient to establish the reliability of the exhibit for purposes of a probation revocation hearing. . . . Furthermore, Peterson’s answers to questions 8 and 10, as reflected in Exhibit 2, are sufficient to establish that he violated the conditions of his probation by viewing pornography.
BAKER, C.J., concurs.
BARNES, J., concurs in result.