You should respond substantively.
"So all conditional parole violate "constitutional rights" if the person who the parolee is supposed to stay away from wants to see them? Uh, yeah. "
I never said that. I'm talking about this particular case. In this particular case, it would raise constitutional issues.
The interest of the person who is supposedly not to be contacted is a constitutional interest in freedom of association (in particular, intimate association (which is part of the "right to privacy" invented in Griswold v. Conn.)), and it is not easily overcome, particularly in light of the fact that they have done nothing wrong and are a law-abiding citizen. In this case, the state would have to demonstrate that keeping the convict away from the vitctim, even after she's turned 18, furthers some legitimate and compelling state interest. Traditionally no-contact orders are used to further one of three purposes, and, to my knowledge, have never been upheld under other circumstances:
(1) To prevent individual from fraternizing with others known or strongly suspected to have tendency towards criminal activity.
(2) For protection, with their consent/desire/lack of objection, of the adult who is not to be contacted.
(3) For protection of minors.
There's a ton of precedent on this if you are interested in actually discussing substantive issues.
