Crimes - Sentence - Probation - Condition Requiring Consent to Search

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J., at plea; Kate S. Paek, J., at sentencing), rendered March 9, 2020, convicting defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to 10 years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation requiring him to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, or place of abode and to the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns or other weapons or contraband found, and otherwise affirmed.

The court improperly imposed, as a condition of defendant's probation, a requirement that he consent to a search by his probation officer of his person, vehicle, or home for weapons, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and other contraband. Defendant was not armed with a weapon during the underlying offense and had no history of violence or use of weapons (see People v Hall, 228 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2024]). Defendant did not have a history of abusing illicit substances and was not assessed as being in need of drug abuse treatment (compare People v Carrasquillo, 242 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2025]). Although defendant admitted to a limited history of alcohol abuse, before and at the time of the instant offense, the consent-search condition, as written, "is not limited to conform" to the "certain limited circumstances where alcohol becomes contraband for the purposes of" that condition (People v Andrus, 241 AD3d 447, 451 [1st Dept 2025]). Contrary to the People's assertion, this issue is not moot since the condition contemplates different searchable areas than Additional Condition No. 7. Concur—Webber, J.P., Friedman, Mendez, Shulman, Hagler, JJ.