Does a finding of a danger of intimidation or injury to complainant need to be met by a preponderance of the evidence?

1 At the hearing the court found that the People had actually supported the continuation of the TOP excluding defendant from his home by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the court does not determine in this case whether a finding of a danger of intimidation or injury to complainant need only have reasonable factual support in the record, as in the case of other determinations relating to bail or recognizance, People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497, 501, 307 N.Y.S.2d 207, 255 N.E.2d 552 (1969), or, whether a higher evidentiary standard is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to support defendant's continued exclusion from his home. Although initially raised in defendant's moving papers, this issue was never briefed by defendant.