Background
Dominic L. Brister was sentenced in two unrelated criminal cases. The case on appeal involved child neglect and operating while intoxicated with a minor passenger. Police had stopped Brister for speeding and weaving while his two-year-old daughter was unsecured in the back seat; she was not injured. A loaded gun was found beneath the rear passenger seat.
The circuit court imposed a combined sentence of eleven years across both cases, equally divided between confinement and extended supervision. It also prohibited Brister from having any contact with his daughter throughout the entire eleven-year sentence. The offenses involving his daughter accounted for three years of that combined sentence. Brister unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief and appealed only the no-contact order concerning his daughter. The Court of Appeals released its opinion on June 30, 2026, and issued a July 17 errata changing the publication recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that a sentencing condition prohibiting every form of communication between Brister and his daughter was a content-neutral restriction on his First Amendment rights. Because parents’ rights to communicate with their children and direct their upbringing are tied to the First Amendment, the restriction was subject to intermediate scrutiny and had to be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.
Although protecting Brister’s daughter was a significant and legitimate interest, the eleven-year ban was overly broad and not narrowly tailored on this record. It barred calls, texts, emails, letters, and in-person contact until the child was approximately fifteen, even though she had not been injured and the crimes involving her produced only three years of the combined sentence. The court reversed and remanded with directions to modify the no-contact order consistently with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- A content-neutral sentencing condition that prevents all communication between a parent and child burdens First Amendment rights and is reviewed under intermediate scrutiny.
- A no-contact condition need not be the least restrictive option, but it must be narrowly tailored to a significant governmental interest.
- The decision does not invalidate every parent-child no-contact order; lengthy or absolute restrictions may be justified by other crimes and records, but this order’s scope and duration were unconstitutional.
Why It Matters
The decision subjects a narrow category of sentencing conditions—content-neutral restrictions on First Amendment activity—to more demanding review than ordinary discretionary sentencing conditions. Courts imposing comprehensive parent-child contact bans must connect the restriction’s scope and duration to the protective interest supported by the record.
The ruling also recognizes that an exceptionally long no-contact order can effectively eliminate most of a parent’s legally protected relationship with a minor child without the safeguards required in a formal termination-of-parental-rights proceeding.