Sec. 4. (a) A condition to remaining on parole is that
the parolee not commit a crime during the period of parole.
(b) The parole board may also adopt, under IC 4-22-2, additional
conditions to remaining on parole and require a parolee to satisfy one
(1) or more of these conditions. These conditions must be reasonably
related to the parolee's successful reintegration into the community and
not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.
(c) If a person is released on parole, the parolee shall be given a
written statement of the conditions of parole. Signed copies of this
statement shall be:
(1) retained by the parolee;
(2) forwarded to any person charged with the parolee's
supervision; and
(3) placed in the parolee's master file.
(d) The parole board may modify parole conditions if the parolee
receives notice of that action and had ten (10) days after receipt of the
notice to express the parolee's views on the proposed modification.
This subsection does not apply to modification of parole conditions
after a revocation proceeding under section 10 of this chapter.
(e) As a condition of parole, the parole board may require the
parolee to reside in a particular parole area. In determining a parolee's
residence requirement, the parole board shall:
(1) consider:
(A) the residence of the parolee prior to the parolee's
incarceration; and
(B) the parolee's place of employment; and
(2) assign the parolee to reside in the county where the parolee
resided prior to the parolee's incarceration unless assignment on
this basis would be detrimental to the parolee's successful
reintegration into the community.
(f) As a condition of parole, the parole board may require the
parolee to:
(1) periodically undergo a laboratory chemical test (as defined in
IC 9-13-2-22) or series of tests to detect and confirm the presence
of a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1.1-7); and
(2) have the results of any test under this subsection reported to
the parole board by the laboratory.
The parolee is responsible for any charges resulting from a test
required under this subsection. However, a person's parole may not be
revoked on the basis of the person's inability to pay for a test under this
subsection.
(g) As a condition of parole, the parole board:
(1) may require a parolee who is a sex offender (as defined in IC 11-8-8-4.5) to:
(A) participate in a treatment program for sex offenders
approved by the parole board; and
(B) avoid contact with any person who is less than sixteen (16)
years of age unless the parolee:
(i) receives the parole board's approval; or
(ii) successfully completes the treatment program referred to
in clause (A); and
(2) shall:
(A) require a parolee who is a sex or violent offender (as
defined in IC 11-8-8-5) to register with a local law enforcement
authority under IC 11-8-8;
(B) prohibit a parolee who is a sex offender from residing
within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property (as defined
in IC 35-31.5-2-285) for the period of parole, unless the sex
offender obtains written approval from the parole board;
(C) prohibit a parolee who is a sex offender convicted of a sex
offense (as defined in IC 35-38-2-2.5) from residing within one
(1) mile of the victim of the sex offender's sex offense unless
the sex offender obtains a waiver under IC 35-38-2-2.5;
(D) prohibit a parolee who is a sex offender from owning,
operating, managing, being employed by, or volunteering at any
attraction designed to be primarily enjoyed by children less than
sixteen (16) years of age;
(E) require a parolee who is a sex offender to consent:
(i) to the search of the sex offender's personal computer at
any time; and
(ii) to the installation on the sex offender's personal computer
or device with Internet capability, at the sex offender's
expense, of one (1) or more hardware or software systems to
monitor Internet usage; and
(F) prohibit the sex offender from:
(i) accessing or using certain websites, chat rooms, or instant
messaging programs frequented by children; and
(ii) deleting, erasing, or tampering with information on the
sex offender's personal computer with intent to conceal an
activity prohibited by item (i).
The parole board may not grant a sexually violent predator (as defined
in IC 35-38-1-7.5) or a sex offender who is an offender against children
under IC 35-42-4-11 a waiver under subdivision (2)(B) or (2)(C). If the
parole board allows the sex offender to reside within one thousand
(1,000) feet of school property under subdivision (2)(B), the parole
board shall notify each school within one thousand (1,000) feet of the
sex offender's residence of the order.
(h) The address of the victim of a parolee who is a sex offender
convicted of a sex offense (as defined in IC 35-38-2-2.5) is
confidential, even if the sex offender obtains a waiver under IC 35-38-2-2.5.
(i) As a condition of parole, the parole board may require a parolee
to participate in a reentry court program.
(j) This subsection does not apply to a person on lifetime parole. As
a condition of parole, the parole board shall require a parolee who is a
sexually violent predator under IC 35-38-1-7.5 or who is a sex or
violent offender (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5) to wear a monitoring
device (as described in IC 35-38-2.5-3) that can transmit information
twenty-four (24) hours each day regarding a person's precise location,
subject to a validated sex offender risk assessment, and subject to the
amount appropriated to the department for a monitoring program as a
condition of parole.
(k) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit, in
accordance with IC 35-38-2-2.6, a parolee who has been convicted of
stalking from residing within one thousand (1,000) feet of the residence
of the victim of the stalking for a period that does not exceed five (5)
years.
(l) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit a parolee
convicted of an offense under IC 35-46-3 from owning, harboring, or
training an animal, and, if the parole board prohibits a parolee
convicted of an offense under IC 35-46-3 from having direct or indirect
contact with an individual, the parole board may also prohibit the
parolee from having direct or indirect contact with any animal
belonging to the individual.
(m) As a condition of parole, the parole board may require a parolee
to receive:
(1) addiction counseling;
(2) inpatient detoxification;
(3) case management;
(4) daily living skills; and
(5) medication assisted treatment, including a federal Food and
Drug Administration approved long acting, nonaddictive
medication for the treatment of opioid or alcohol dependence.
(n) A parolee may be responsible for the reasonable expenses, as
determined by the department, of the parolee's participation in a
treatment or other program required as a condition of parole under this
section. However, a person's parole may not be revoked solely on the
basis of the person's inability to pay for a program required as a
condition of parole under this section.
(o) As a condition of parole, the parole board shall prohibit a person
convicted of an animal abuse offense (as defined in IC 35-38-2-2.8)
from owning, harboring, or training a companion animal (as defined in
IC 35-38-2-2.8).
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.120, SEC.6. Amended by Acts
1981, P.L.136, SEC.1; P.L.67-1990, SEC.5; P.L.11-1994, SEC.8;
P.L.1-1995, SEC.60; P.L.214-1999, SEC.2; P.L.238-2001, SEC.15;
P.L.116-2002, SEC.18; P.L.6-2006, SEC.2; P.L.60-2006, SEC.1;
P.L.139-2006, SEC.2; P.L.140-2006, SEC.15 and P.L.173-2006,
SEC.15; P.L.1-2007, SEC.103; P.L.216-2007, SEC.31; P.L.46-2008,
SEC.1; P.L.119-2008, SEC.10; P.L.1-2009, SEC.100; P.L.111-2009,
SEC.2; P.L.229-2011, SEC.104; P.L.40-2012, SEC.5; P.L.114-2012,
SEC.27; P.L.187-2015, SEC.12; P.L.209-2015, SEC.10; P.L.95-2017,
SEC.1; P.L.37-2019, SEC.1; P.L.45-2022, SEC.1; P.L.1-2025,
SEC.163; P.L.186-2025, SEC.94.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case:
Weiss v. Indiana Parole Bd., 838 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Weiss v. Indiana Parole Bd., 838 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 50× “Furthermore, any such perceived legislative intent is undercut by the fact that imposition of the conditions is clearly restricted to an "offender" as defined within I.”
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 27× “In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014).
· cites it 6× “See generally Ind.Code § 11-13-3-4. And the provision also provides that “[t]he parole board may also adopt, under IC 4-22-2, additional conditions to remaining on parole and require a parolee to satisfy one (1) or more of these conditions.”
State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2019); Ind. Code Ann. § 11-13-3-4 (j) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Subsections (a) and (b) have been part of Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4 since it was enacted in 1979.”
State v. Pollard, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4 (g)(2)(B) (providing that the parole board shall, as a condition of parole, "prohibit a parolee who is a sex offender from residing within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property .”
Daquan Whitener v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We observed that Ind.Code § 11-13-3-4(b) granted the parole board “general authority to impose additional conditions beyond the standard conditions for a person on parole as long as the conditions are reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the…”
Bleeke v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, the Parole Board’s response illustrates its apparent position that it need not conduct an individualized as *1051 sessment under Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b). There is no designated evidence that supports the imposition of the additional conditions.”
David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, & Susan Feasby (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 24× “” Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) allows the Parole Board “to adopt, under IC 4-22- 2, additional conditions” that “must be reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
Raphael D. Driver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4 (1998). Here, the use of a GPS monitoring system is reasonably related to Driver’s re- integration into society and is not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(a) — 2 cases
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“Subsections (a) and (b) have been part of Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4 since it was enacted in 1979.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(b) — 6 cases
Weiss v. Indiana Parole Bd., 838 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Furthermore, any such perceived legislative intent is undercut by the fact that imposition of the conditions is clearly restricted to an "offender" as defined within I.”
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
Daquan Whitener v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“We observed that Ind.Code § 11-13-3-4(b) granted the parole board “general authority to impose additional conditions beyond the standard conditions for a person on parole as long as the conditions are reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the…”
Bleeke v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“Indeed, the Parole Board’s response illustrates its apparent position that it need not conduct an individualized as *1051 sessment under Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b). There is no designated evidence that supports the imposition of the additional conditions.”
David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, & Susan Feasby (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) allows the Parole Board “to adopt, under IC 4-22- 2, additional conditions” that “must be reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(c) — 1 case
Raphael D. Driver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4 (1998). Here, the use of a GPS monitoring system is reasonably related to Driver’s re- integration into society and is not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(d) — 2 cases
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
Weiss v. Indiana Parole Bd., 838 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Furthermore, any such perceived legislative intent is undercut by the fact that imposition of the conditions is clearly restricted to an "offender" as defined within I.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(e) — 1 case
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(g) — 5 cases
Weiss v. Indiana Parole Bd., 838 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Furthermore, any such perceived legislative intent is undercut by the fact that imposition of the conditions is clearly restricted to an "offender" as defined within I.”
Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014).
“See generally Ind.Code § 11-13-3-4. And the provision also provides that “[t]he parole board may also adopt, under IC 4-22-2, additional conditions to remaining on parole and require a parolee to satisfy one (1) or more of these conditions.”
Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In imposing the special conditions at issue, the Board failed to comply with Indiana Code Sections 11-13-3-4 and 4-22-2-19.5; II. In revoking his parole, the Board deprived Harris of the due process rights outlined in Morrissey v.”
Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“Subsections (a) and (b) have been part of Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4 since it was enacted in 1979.”
David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, & Susan Feasby (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) allows the Parole Board “to adopt, under IC 4-22- 2, additional conditions” that “must be reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(g)(2) — 1 case
Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014).
“See generally Ind.Code § 11-13-3-4. And the provision also provides that “[t]he parole board may also adopt, under IC 4-22-2, additional conditions to remaining on parole and require a parolee to satisfy one (1) or more of these conditions.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(g)(2)(B) — 1 case
David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, & Susan Feasby (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) allows the Parole Board “to adopt, under IC 4-22- 2, additional conditions” that “must be reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(g)(2)(D) — 1 case
David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, & Susan Feasby (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“” Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) allows the Parole Board “to adopt, under IC 4-22- 2, additional conditions” that “must be reasonably related to the parolee’s successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(g)(l)(B)(i) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 11-13-3-4(m) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.