Cases holding that place restrictions on the Drug Court participant are constitutional, when reasonably related to rehabilitative needs

State v. Klie

State v. Klie, 174 P.3d 358 (Hawaii 2007)

Supporting a prohibition against entering Waikiki area.

People v. Rizzo

People v. Rizzo, 842 N.E.2d 727, 727 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)

Factors often used in determining whether the restriction is reasonable include whether the defendant has a compelling need to go through/to the area; a mechanism for supervised entry into the area; the geographic size of the restricted area, and the relationship between the restriction and the rehabilitation needs of the offender.

State v. Wright

State v. Wright, 739 N.E.2d 1172, 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

Reversing prohibition of entering any place where alcohol is distributed, served, consumed, given away, or sold because it restricted the defendant from grocery stores and the vast majority of all residences.

Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 1048, 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Prohibiting defendant from being near high drug areas.

People v. Pickens

People v. Pickens, 542 N.E.2d 1253, 1253 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)

Prohibition against entering town of Champaign, Ill. reasonably related to rehabilitation.

People v. Beach

People v. Beach, 195 Cal. Rptr. 381, 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)

Holding unconstitutional defendant’s banishment from the community where she has lived for the last 24 years.

Oyoghok v. Municipality of Anchorage

Oyoghok v. Municipality of Anchorage, 641 P.2d 1267, 1267 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982)

Conditioning probation on not being within a two block radius in an area where red light area existed.

State v. Morgan

State v. Morgan, 389 So. 2d 364, 364 (La. 1980)

Prohibiting entrance into the French Quarter.