Ah, I see…the place of purchase was the violation, not the purchase itself.

Walking from one store to another in the same plaza which shares the same parking lot is not falsifying your driving record, but is a walking travel restriction when one cannot walk from one store to the next in the same plaza using the same parking lot. If I get a haircut in the same plaza as the grocery store along with the hardware store in the same plaza, which I visit from the same parking spot (and is my reality), that is standard normal business operating thinking by someone in society. They cannot restrict you with a walking restriction when it comes to doing business in the same vicinity and should be admonished by the court when they attempt to do so…that is the lesson for all here.

What is pornography anyway? Art? Showing different ways to get pregnant? The exhibit of sexual gratification by others for others to see? What it is to one is not the same for another. The courts (especially SCOTUS) have long said they will know pornography when they see it.

In the end, glad to hear the judge tossed it with admonishment for the PO and you could walk away, but not without being inconvenienced for the time being. This situation is rife with challenges people need to think of to make the life of the PO just as difficult as they want to make for others. The system is full of jerks like this.

The violation was BEING in an Adult Book Store. They considered it falsifying my driving record even though it was in the same plaza as another stop I was making. They also considered it a Violation by being exposed to pornography. That was how they violated me. The question was had I seen ANY pornography in the last 6 months, and I panicked, and said I may have when I walked in to buy condoms because it was everywhere.

Link to von Behren case.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/15-1033/15-1033-2016-05-10.html

Buying condoms being a violation is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard. They are great party favors while encouraging safe sex, which maybe the PO needed to have for stress relief.

@Jacob- if you read my comment earlier on in this thread, I did nothing that anyone else would ever be considered “wrong”; however, I was nervous and admitted in the pre-interview that I bought condoms at an adult book store during a pre-interview. Now, since the entirety of the test is not admissible in court, my P.O. kept me in my 15-minute weekly appointment for over an hour, asking me different ways to get me to ‘admit’ to the violation to her, until I cracked and was immediately hauled off for two weeks until a judge saw it was petty and reinstated me.

But they won’t get rid of it because its a money thing

Who is paying who and how much?

Correct, polygraph test results where polygraph questions were answered with resulting polygraph data are not admissible.

It is mental torture for the system is not fair to those who are forced to participate in it by those who want to see failure where a smiley face in their record shows they did good with a system that is a farce to start with.