State v. Altajir, 303 Conn. 304

Altajir pleaded nolo contendere in 2006 to misconduct with a motor vehicle and under-21 DUI; court imposed five years with one year suspended and five years probation with special conditions including ignition interlock and license Reinstatement.
Released in 2008 after serving one nonsuspended year; in 2009 on probation involved in a minor accident but without alcohol involvement and admitted violating ignition interlock/license conditions.
Dispositional hearing: state sought revocation of probation and imposition of remaining four years; defense argued for leniency focused on underlying offenses.
State introduced approximately seventy Facebook photographs; many show alcohol use; images undated; defendant and counsel objected to reliability and probative value; court admitted 36 images as a full exhibit.
Court found three-year sentence appropriate given probation violations and the apparent disregard for consequences; probation terminated and defendant sentenced to three years.
Appellate Court affirmed; Supreme Court granted certification to address due process concerns about admitting Facebook material and its impact on the dispositional decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Facebook photographs were admissible under due process for dispositional decision.	State contends photos have reliability indicia and inform the court's discretion.	Altajir argues lack of reliability and improper consideration of undated, third‑party images.	Yes; photos had minimal indicia of reliability and the court did not abuse discretion.
Whether the trial court may rely on undisputed Facebook evidence in probation disposition.	State asserts broad discretion to consider information at sentencing.	Altajir contends information was unreliable and unduly prejudicial.	Two‑part test satisfied: minimal reliability and no reversible reliance on unreliable data.
Whether absence of denial of the statements in photos supports reliability.	Uncontested representation and lack of denial indicate reliability.	Defendant did not deny acts depicted; challenge concerns probative force, not reliability.	Absence of denial provides indicium of reliability; does not require exclusion.
Whether the sentencing standard for probation revocation aligns with trial sentencing standards.	Dispositional phase allows broad information for informed discretion.	Due process requires some reliability; improper factors cannot drive sentence.	Probation disposition uses sentencing standards with reliability safeguards; no due process violation.

State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 (2006) (two-phase probation revocation review; factual finding then discretionary revocation)
State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing; deferential review)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process in probation revocation; informed discretion realized)
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (broad sentencing discretion to consider information outside trial evidence)
State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121 (1986) (discretionary sentencing evidence must have reliability indicia)
State v. Eric M., 271 Conn. 641 (2004) (reliability threshold for information used at sentencing)
State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5 (2007) (informational reliability and substantial reliance standard)
State v. Collette, 199 Conn. 308 (1986) (mere reference to information outside record requires reliability and substantial reliance)
United States v. Bass, 535 F.2d 110 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (absence of denial as indicium of reliability in sentencing)
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (self-incrimination considerations not present in probation revocation)
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (probation revocation not criminal proceeding; no privilege against self-incrimination)