Respondent-minor was sentenced to three years probation for robbery. The probation prohibited him from participating in any activity that furthered or promoted a function of a street gang and restricted his social media usage. Respondent argued that the prohibition was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The prohibition required that the Respondent not post, and must clear from social media, any photos or videos of himself holding or displaying any guns, real or replicas, or any other weapons, any photos, videos or messages promoting street gang activity, acts of violence, criminal activity, illegal drugs, or money that was illegally obtained. Respondent argued that the court's failure to specify the type of contact that would not violate the no-gang-contact condition put him at an unreasonable risk of unintentionally violating his probation by participating at school, interacting with his classmates online, or participating in family or educational settings. Furthermore, he argued that there was no guidance given about what social media activities would violate the protection order. However, Respondent had failed to object to the terms at the disposition hearing and therefore, the Appellate Court could only review the claim for plain error. The Appellate Court determined the restrictions were not vague because the court did not merely tell the Respondent to stay away from gangs but explained that he could not participate in any activity that furthered or promoted a function of a street gang and had to delete any images or messages from social media that promoted street gang activities. Furthermore, the restrictions were reasonably related to the nature of the robbery offense and rehabilitation. Also, removing the Respondent from the influence of street gangs was in his best interest and for his safety. (GORDON and BURKE, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Juvenile Sentencing