§ 215.50) for use of a cell phone in the courtroom during a rape trial to take
pictures in violation of the judge’s admonition that all cell phones were to be
turned off and put away, the photographs and other data recovered from de-
fendant’s cell phone were suppressed as the People failed to prove that the
court officer had probable cause to arrest defendant. Penal Law § 215.50 (3)
requires proof of intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process
or other mandate of the court. Here, there was insufficient proof both that de-
fendant had personal notice of the judge’s cell phone admonishment, and that
defendant willfully or intentionally, as opposed to inadvertently, violated it.
While the hearing minutes from the first day of trial with the judge’s cell
phone admonishment were introduced into evidence, the officer’s testimony
was contradictory as to whether defendant was actually in the court to hear
the admonitions that day or the next day, the day defendant was observed
with his cell phone open. Moreover, the officer’s testimony—that upon observing
defendant with a small flip phone open by his hip, he motioned him to shut it
off, and defendant’s companion nudged him and motioned him to shut it off
upon seeing the officer coming over, which defendant promptly did—was far
short of demonstrating that defendant’s actions amounted to intentional dis-
regard of the judge’s admonition. Instead, defendant was arrested for having a
picture of the complainant on his cell phone, found after a search of his phone,
not as a result of having his phone out and open in the courtroom.
Crimes — Search Warrant — Probable Cause
4. In a prosecution for criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law