People v. Schulz

Defendant appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release, arguing that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons in the community and the trial court erred in its determination that detention was the least restrictive alternative. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s determination that defendant posed a real and present threat to safety was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State proffer provided evidence that defendant possessed and disseminated pornography involving young children and because the internet makes the ability to share this information ubiquitous. The appellate court further explained that the trial court did not err when it concluded that it could not effectively impose a restriction prohibiting access to the internet. (REYES, concurring and VAN TINE, specially concurring)