LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR.
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Latah County Courthouse
P.O. Box 8068
Moscow, Idaho 83843-0568
Phone: (208) 883-2246
ISB No. 2613

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff,

V.

STEVEN JAMES SITLER,
Defendant.

Case No. CR-2005-02027
OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION
OF PROBATION CONDITIONS

COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and hereby objects to the Court’s December 23, 2015, “Consolidation of Terms and Conditions of Probation Upon Reconsideration.” In support of this objection, the State respectfully shows the Court as follows:

1. The Court’s order stems from an off-the-record in-chambers conference between Court and counsel;
2. There was no pending motion before the Court requesting a modification of the probation conditions, or seeking any other relief (although there were sealed factual submissions provided to the Court);
3. The State was unable to respond fully to the substantive issues raised during the in-chambers conference by virtue of the fact that the defendant’s supervising probation officer, Christine Jensen, was out of state, and the fact that Ms. Jensen would be out of state was known to Court and counsel.

Wherefore, the State respectfully prays that the Court rescind its “Consolidation of Terms and Conditions of Probation Upon Reconsideration” pending a properly noticed hearing where the Court can have the benefit of the input of the defendant’s supervising probation officer and other witnesses. Alternatively, the State respectfully prays that the Court further modify the conditions of defendant’s probation so as to:

1. Require that in order for the defendant to have contact with any of his victims, the Court and the Idaho Department of Correction must be assured that the victim (or the victim’s parents if the victim is a minor) is fully aware of the circumstances of his or her victimization and, with that knowledge, affirmatively consents to contact with the defendant; and
2. Substitute the word “and” for “or” in the last line of condition #19 so it reads “. . . and that desire has been made known in writing to the Idaho Department of Probation and Parole and (emphasis added) this Court.”

In further support of the State’s alternative prayer, the State respectfully refers the Court and counsel to the attached Exhibit A (“Idaho Department of Corrections Sex Offender Agreement of Supervision” — Appendix B to IDOC Policy 701.04.02.006 adopted 4/18/2012 — particularly condition 11) and Exhibit B (“Idaho Department of Correction Sex Offender Informed Consent for Visitation with Minors” — Appendix K to IDOC Policy 701-04.02.006 adopted 4/18/2012), which evidences IDOC’s statewide adopted policy on the matters referenced therein.

Oral argument and the presentation of testimony and evidence is requested.

Respectfully submitted this 30 day of December, 2015.

William W. Thompson, Jr.
Prosecuting Attorney