PLEASE NOTE: I am not a legal expert. Please rely on the court documents, public records, and other available resources for the facts surrounding the case and other information regarding Luke Wenke’s legal proceedings.
On April 20th, the federal court denied Luke Wenke’s motion to reopen the bail proceedings in his ongoing cyberstalking case. As of 04/23/2026, Wenke remains held without bail at the Monroe County Jail in Rochester, New York pending the outcome of his case.
Wenke’s public defender filed the motion for a new bail hearing in late March in hopes that the judge would set bail, thereby enabling Wenke to secure his freedom pending the outcome of his case. The following week, the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case filed a response opposing the motion and urging the court to keep Luke Wenke detained without bail.
The Defense’s Response
On April 14th, Luke Wenke’s public defender filed a response to the U.S. Government’s opposition to a new bail hearing. In the document, the defense argues that the prosecution’s reasoning oversimplified the issue at hand.
More specifically, Wenke’s lawyer, Victoria Bahl, argues that the government’s claim — that Wenke’s motion fails because prosecutors used other legal grounds for detention — misses the point. She says the court’s earlier decision labeling cyberstalking as a “crime of violence” influenced the entire detention hearing and shaped the judge’s conclusion that no release conditions could keep the community safe.
In other words, Bahl essentially seems to be saying, “Even if there were other reasons for detention, calling this a violent crime affected how the court viewed everything.” Additionally:
-
Wenke insists that cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) shouldn’t be considered a “crime of violence” because it can involve acts that are not considered violent, like speech or threats of self-harm.
-
Wenke argues that it’s possible to violate the law without using or threatening physical force, in which cases said conduct doesn’t fit the legal definition of a violent crime.
- Wenke points out that the government’s cited cases (like United States v. Harrison) failed to thoroughly address this broader range of conduct.
USA v. Luke Wenke | Response
April 14th, 2026
CASE #1:26-cv-00181, DOC. #19
Motion: Denied
The judge overseeing Luke Wenke’s current cyberstalking case ultimately agreed with the prosecution and denied Luke Wenke’s motion to reconsider his pretrial detention. In his decision, the judge noted a few key points, including:
-
Wenke didn’t present any truly new or material information that would change the earlier decision.
-
Even if cyberstalking wasn’t considered a “crime of violence,” Wenke’s detention is still justified based on other legal grounds.
-
The earlier detention order was based on specific evidence showing Wenke posed a danger, not just on the “crime of violence” label.
USA v. Luke Wenke | Order on Motion
April 14th, 2026
CASE #1:26-cv-00181, DOC. #21
