FirstAlerts

Niles Man Charged with Contempt for Allegedly Violating Protection Order

Jon S. Tanner, 66, faces two counts of first-degree criminal contempt after allegedly contacting and following a protected woman. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 25, 2026, 10:37 a.m. ETWritten Aug 25, 2026, 10:52 a.m. ET
Jon S. Tanner, 66, of Niles, has been with two counts of first-degree criminal contempt, according to the Cayuga County Sheriff's Office as reported by FingerLakes1.com. The charges stem from allegations that Tanner repeatedly contacted and followed a woman who is protected by a stay-away order. The government claims Tanner contacted the woman as many as 77 times in recent months and followed her vehicle through multiple towns, according to FingerLakes1.com. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial has been held and no verdict has been reached. Tanner is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The investigation is ongoing, and further details have not been released.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 14:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.