Vaidik, CJ.
Antonio Waters pled guilty to criminal deviate conduct, battery resulting in bodily injury, and strangulation after assaulting a woman in 2008. The trial court entered a sentence of imprisonment to be followed by probation. … The day before Waters was released from prison in 2016, the court held a hearing and imposed twenty-six sex-offender conditions. Waters appeals the imposition of those conditions, arguing that holding the delayed second hearing violated Indiana law and that, in the alternative, seventeen of the twenty-six conditions are unnecessary and inappropriate.
We agree with the State that Waters waived any objection to the bifurcation of the sentencing hearing. …
… A trial court has broad discretion to impose conditions of probation. Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109, 113 (Ind. 2010). …
As to the four conditions addressing minors—17, 20, 21, and 22—we agree with Waters. … Our Supreme Court held in Bleeke v. Lemmon that because the defendant’s sex crime was not against a minor and because there was no evidence that the defendant posed a threat to children, parole conditions that restricted his contact with children could not be viewed as “reasonably related to [his] successful reintegration into the community.”
… Nevertheless, … without any evidence that Waters poses a particular threat to children, conditions 17, 20, 21, and 22 cannot be said to be reasonably related to the treatment of the defendant and the protection of public safety. As such, the trial court erred when it imposed these four conditions.
…Restricting someone’s access to the internet does more than prevent them from contacting minors; it prevents them from contacting adults as well. However, we conclude that as it is currently imposed, condition 26 is overly broad in its restrictions.
The internet has become increasingly pervasive in our daily lives; we use it to pay bills, order food, get directions, communicate with friends and colleagues, and file taxes, among other things. Other courts have recognized that a sex offender who has no history of illegal internet use and did not use the internet as an instrument in his crime should not have a total ban on his internet access but rather a narrowly tailored restriction. …
Here, there is no evidence in the record to show that Waters used the internet to commit his attack on S.C. or that he has a history of illegal internet use. The trial court noted that Waters has “issues with respect to women,” not issues with the internet. In light of this observation, we acknowledge that the internet has become a popular medium for people to meet, and it is one way Waters could meet women. Modern technology affords the court the tools to limit Waters’ access to certain dating websites and phone applications, as well as websites with sexually explicit materials—restrictions that are reasonably related to his rehabilitation and the protection of public safety. … On remand, the trial court should impose a narrower internet restriction that is more in line with Waters’ conviction and “issues with women.”
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.