In Bodfish v. State, 2009 WL 3233716 (Alaska App. Oct. 7, 2009) (unpublished) the defendant's probation conditions prohibited him from engaging in an "intimate relationship" without the prior written permission of his probation officer. Because this condition restricted Bodfish's ability to freely choose his intimate associates, the condition implicated his constitutional rights, and we subjected it to special scrutiny. The Court concluded that the probation condition was overbroad. The Court also concluded that it was impermissibly vague, because "the meaning of the phrase 'engage in an intimate relationship' is unclear, and the meaning is further obscured because the condition applies to 'any person,' not just women with whom Bodfish is romantically involved."