Cir.2003) (recognizing that "the concomitant dangers of the internet and the need to protect both the public and sex offenders themselves from its potential abuses"). Also, Patton's inter net restriction is tailored to him as a sex offender and serves the legitimate needs of law enforcement to monitor and restrict his activities with children for this initial period following his conviction. On the other hand, we note that the internet restriction as applied to Patton does not prohibit him from searching for employment, gaining additional education, or reading a newspaper. The condition prohibits Patton from accessing only those internet-related activities used by children, which are directly related to his position as a sex offender on probation. N.E.2d 267, 275 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). See Harris v. State, 836 Patton, 990 N.E.2d
holding parolee consented to search of his email based on the parole agreement holding that an internet restriction on a parolee reasonably related to the states goals of reintegrating the parolee into his community protecting the general public and preventing future crime does not unduly infringe upon the parolees first amendment rights holding that a parole condition which restricted a parolees access to the internet unless he had prior approval of his parole officer was reasonably related to reintegrating the parolee into his community and protecting the general public and did not violate parolees first amendment rights holding that parole status alone is insufficient to justify search of a parolee holding suspicionless searches of parolees cannot be justified by consent if prospective parolee does not have freedom to accept or reject parole