You are here: / / PROBATION CONDITIONS PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A COMPUTER AND A CELL PHONE...

PROBATION CONDITIONS PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A COMPUTER AND A CELL PHONE WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE; DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ABUSE FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of the conditions of probation prohibiting defendant from possessing a computer and cell phone were not warranted. Defendant pled guilty to attempted sexual abuse first degree:

In addition to prohibiting defendant from maintaining an account on a social networking site, condition 34 also prohibits defendant from purchasing, possessing, controlling, or having access to any computer or device with internet capabilities and from maintaining any “internet account,” including email, without permission from his probation officer. Condition 35 prohibits defendant from owning, renting, or possessing a cell phone with picture taking capabilities or cameras or video recorders for capturing images. In light of defendant’s lack of a prior criminal history and the lack of evidence in the record linking defendant’s use of technology to the underlying offense, we conclude that those parts of condition 34 and the entirety of condition 35 do not relate to the goals of probation and thus are not enforceable on that ground … . People v Blanco-Ortiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04447, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

You might also like
AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, THE SHERIFF’S DEPUTY WAS ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF EACH OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PURSUIT OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DEFENDANT’S DISCARDING THE HANDGUN WAS IN RESPONSE TO POLICE ILLEGALITY, THE HANDGUN WAS NOT ABANDONED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
No Statute of Limitations Applies to an Owner Seeking to Have an Apparent Encumbrance Struck from the Record

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT... PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT;...