Rainey was convicted of 1st degree kidnapping and telephone harassment. Essentially he kidnapped his daughter and took her to Mexico. As part of the sentence, the judge imposed a no-contact order for the statutory maximum of his sentence, which in this case was life. Rainey challenged the imposition under Blakely, however, “a Washington trial court has the discretion to impose a crime-related prohibition up to the statutory maximum for the crime of which the defendant is convicted without resort to aggravating factors of any kind.” Thus, Blakely was not violated.
As to his parental rights, here, the State has a compelling interest in protection of victims of crime from future harm. However, while the State has an interest in doing so, the scope must be analyzed in terms of the need. For instance, indirect contact through monitored letters may still protect the victim.
Of course, the court essentially gave the trial court the exact reasoning it would need to lay out to support a blanket no contact order (I always find unsubtle hints to lower courts amusing). Of course, because the blanket ban is reasonably necessary now does not mean that it will be reasonably necessary later, and the trial court needs to explain why lifetime is reasonably necessary.
