The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld the revocation of Roger D. Jorgensen's probation. The court found that Jorgensen violated the terms of his probation related to unlawful surveillance. This decision, made on November 13, 2026, could have significant implications for individuals on probation and the enforcement of probation conditions.

Jorgensen's case began when he was convicted of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, which is a serious crime under New York law. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to probation instead of incarceration. However, the conditions of his probation included strict limitations on his use of surveillance equipment and social media. The recent ruling by the Appellate Division addressed whether Jorgensen had adhered to these conditions.

The dispute arose when the Cayuga County Court revoked Jorgensen's probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration. The court found that he had violated the terms of his probation by possessing surveillance equipment and improperly accessing social media. This led to an appeal from Jorgensen, who argued that the court had acted improperly during the probation violation hearing.

The Appellate Division reviewed the case and the arguments presented by both sides. Jorgensen contended that the County Court had assumed the role of an advocate during the hearing by questioning his probation officer. However, the court noted that Jorgensen did not object to this questioning at the time, which meant he could not raise this issue on appeal. The court stated, "As a general rule, a court is entitled to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of [a] trial [or hearing]." This suggests that the court's questioning was within its rights to ensure a fair process.

The ruling also emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in probation violation cases. The People must establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellate Division found that the lower court had sufficient evidence to support its decision. The court credited the testimony of Jorgensen's probation officer, who reported that Jorgensen had indeed possessed surveillance equipment and accessed social media in violation of his probation conditions.

In the opinion, the judges noted that Jorgensen's own testimony did not effectively dispute the allegations against him. He admitted to disposing of the surveillance equipment but claimed he had voluntarily disclosed his social media activities to his probation officer. The Appellate Division, giving deference to the lower court's credibility determinations, saw no reason to overturn the decision to revoke Jorgensen's probation.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment, stating that the sentence of incarceration imposed was not unduly harsh or severe. This ruling underscores the importance of compliance with probation conditions and the consequences of violations.

The impact of this decision is significant for individuals on probation in New York. It reinforces the idea that courts take probation violations seriously and that they have the authority to revoke probation and impose incarceration if conditions are not met. This ruling could serve as a precedent for future cases involving probation violations, particularly those related to surveillance and technology use.

Looking ahead, Jorgensen may have the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, although the likelihood of success in such an appeal is uncertain. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing, but the ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future.