By FITSNews || South Carolina lawmakers are considering a bill that would permit warrant-less searches if a person is on probation or parole – legislation that is prima facie unconstitutional.
Assuming prima facie means what we think it means, anyway …
As good libertarians, we obviously oppose anything that’s unconstitutional – just as we oppose anything that puts us on a slippery slope toward a police state, green or otherwise.
With Republicans ostensibly serving as the party of limited government (and Democrats as their big government “counterpointers”), it would stand to reason that a bill authorizing warrant-less searches would be as good as dead in a “GOP-controlled” legislative body, right?
Wrong.
In the Banana Police State of South Carolina, it’s actually the “Republicans” who are pushing this nonsense (sort of like it was “Republican” lawmakers pushing to create their own police force last year).
Courtesy of Katie Williams of MidlandsConnect.com, here’s S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell expressing his support for the legislation:
You’ve got to monitor offenders on the outside just as you would inside prison.
What?
Yeah … and here’s S.C. Rep. Bakari Sellers (D-Bamberg) – one of the more “liberal” members of the S.C. General Assembly – expressing his opposition:
It appears the government is taking another step to infringe on civil liberties and freedoms.
Welcome to “Republican” rule in the “reddest state in America,” people … good to know who’s on what side, right?
By Lawyer in SC February 18, 2010 at 12:33 am
“legislation that is prima facie unconstitutional.”
Sorry Sic. You need to ask for a tuition refund from your law school. This matter is settled. Even Justice Ginsburg couldn’t find a way to rationalize extending 4th Amendment protection to an individual who would be in prison but for the mercy of the state. If you are on probation or parole you are guilty of some crime and your a$$ is state property. Don’t like it? Don’t break the law…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_v._California
By OhNoNotAgain February 18, 2010 at 12:34 am
I have seen parts of the bill, and it, I believe, is for warrantless searches of people on probation.
If you understand the concept of probation, it’s serving your prison sentence OUTSIDE prison. You have to comply with a bunch of rules, report when you are supposed to report, get a drug test at a whim and on court-designated non-whims if you are a drug offender.
The bill I saw was for probationaries.
So they are people who, if we were not nice enough to put them on the outside, would have no expectation of privacy and can be searched at a moment’s notice.
Not saying it’s right or wrong. But that’s the bill I saw.
If there’s more to it, than of course, squarely against it for the general population.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 12:34 am
OK…Now can you people see that neo-cons are the same as socialists.?.
Neo-cons want to take your liberty in the guise of protection while socialist do it in the name of social “fairness”
But thats nothing compared to what Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee… It is now “defined policy” that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 7:21 am
“Lawyer in SC”…..Gee was it not the supreme court that ruled on Kelo vs New London.?? As if that makes anything constitutional.It just proves the court makes unconstitutional judgments.If the court held a strict constitutional line we would not have most of the bullshit we do because of the bastardizing of the interstate commerce law.
By countryboy February 18, 2010 at 7:34 am
What’s wrong with a warrentless search of a convicted criminal who has not completed his or her sentence and is on parole?
By Ynotfirst February 18, 2010 at 8:01 am
private law abiding citizens will be next… oh wait, we were first. Check the Patriot Act for sneek and peek rules.
By dirtbogger February 18, 2010 at 8:16 am
Who would have thought the land of the free would have the highest prison population in the world? Has any one else noticed how much money law inforcement is getting through the reinvestment act. And of course a Lawyer would want this bogus law. It means more money in your pocket.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 8:23 am
“countryboy”….So no matter what minor offense you might have committed(or not)….after the courts ruled you guilty and you were put on probation.They should then have the right to enter and ransack your house for no reason??….How about if you are found guilty you give up your rights as a citizen ??.That sounds good.
Ynotfirst..is correct.This is small potatoes to what liberties the Pat Act has already destroyed.They can just kill you and say they thought you might be a terrorist…no arrest,no trial..just a bullet.That’s were your kind of thinking ends up and that they already say they have the right to do it
By Doris February 18, 2010 at 8:40 am
Done that, been there. Jean Toal has a warrantless search and seizure rule known as the Demand Subpoena Ducus Tecum in the South Carolina lawyer regulation system. Any lawyer in South Carolina at any time is subject to some goon with a badge and a gun showing up and seizing any file in that lawyer’s office at any time with no notice. Don’t believe it? Call some property lawyers out Garners Ferry Road and ask them.
By Lowcountry Lawyer February 18, 2010 at 9:19 am
Easy Sic. You are out of your depth here and it is only the legal baby pool that you are wading in.
“Lawyer in SC” is correct. This bill may be a bad idea (for one thing it seems ideal for arbitrary actions by police that will present some real constitutional issues) and more stupid grandstanding from our legislators but it is not prima facie unconstitutional as the proposed type of warrantless search is permitted under SCOTUS precedent.
The Fourth Amendment has a warrant requirement but the exceptions to that basically shape the law in the area. Exceptions for objects in plain view, exigent circumstances, evidence that can be disposed of, etc etc have been carved out over the past couple of centuries.
Even your frequent targets in the legal world – CSOL students and future Guvnah McMaster know about all this stuff…
By countryboy February 18, 2010 at 9:20 am
Liberty – I’m a law abiding citizen. I have no sympathy for convicted felons or terrorists, nor concern for their rights under South Carolina or Federal law. Therefore I don’t lose any sleep over warrantless search laws that apply to felons on parole, or to suspected terrorists under the Patriot act.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 10:19 am
“I’m a law abiding citizen”…I will let everyone else tell you how intelligent you are to think that is a defense against a crime accusation…or that you are somehow exempt from being falsely accused or convicted.
Keep supporting laws you think will only affect people besides yourself…till no one has any rights to stand up for you.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 10:27 am
“Lowcountry Lawyer” “This bill may be a bad idea (for one thing it seems ideal for arbitrary actions by police that will present some real constitutional issues) and more stupid grandstanding from our legislators”
Isn’t that the point???….
Besides SCOTUS only makes things legal behind the guns…It does not mean they are properly administering the intent of our liberty within the Constitution.
By Lowcountry Lawyer February 18, 2010 at 10:41 am
Liberty For Me –
No that is actually not the point.
Sic said that the proposed law was “prima facie unconstitutional.” My post was an attempt to explain why it is not.
By sid February 18, 2010 at 10:41 am
So, would you rather be forced to serve the full sentence behind bars, or would you rather be out (not “free,” but out), with the possibility that you could be searched at any given time without a reason? Personally, if I found myself on the wrong end of the judicial system, I’d prefer the latter. Even if I was convicted of breaking a law I felt should not be a law. There are plenty of those out there, but I also understand that if I choose civil disobedience, there are still potential ramifications.
Legally, what’s being proposed is perfectly constitutional, according to precedent. Good luck getting SCOTUS to overturn it. Whether govt. should do this, that’s another question. But to paraphrase a great man, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, or don’t want to be searched while serving your time outside of a prison, and if you are subject to search, try not to do anything else that would be considered illegal under your particular circumstance. Don’t do it. And keep your eye on the sparrow.
By Mike at the beach February 18, 2010 at 10:56 am
Sorry Will, but this kind of nitwittery is what separates Republicans from Big-L Libertarians. This stuff is by no stretch of the imagination un-Constitutional (at least according to my Con law profs back in the day). These jackasses sign on to these searches in exchange for “serving” the remainder of their sentences outside prison walls. Don’t want PPP knocking on your door for these searches? Easy- either A) Don’t victimize anyone, or B) Turn down parole when it’s offered. Easy.
By FITSNews February 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
Slippery slope, bitches. Slippery slope.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 11:13 am
“Lowcountry Lawyer”…It is “prima facie unconstitutional.” Your point being the slanted SCOTUS says it is not….
I guess it depends on what most consider “prima faciea” by the intent of the drafters of the constitution.It is perception… your quote “ideal for arbitrary actions by police”…shows why their ruling is wrong…and my point.
These things lead to very slippery slopes.And it begs to ask the question.Why after hundreds of years do we need SC to have this invasion of liberties??..Because we want to follow in the foot steps of California??
That sounds like a great move…….
Of course the neo-con posters on this site are all for it.They basically want a militarized society anyway…because they think they will always be the one not targeted…
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 11:18 am
Mike at the beach..If it is legal in SC now ,why do they need to make it a law???
You people need to buy a big screen.Becaue you are too shallow to get the big picture.
By Lawyer in SC February 18, 2010 at 11:37 am
Liberty: Whether you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision is a different (much less interesting) issue. Our Constitution says SCOTUS is the last word on interpreting the document and they have spoken to this question.
The contention that this is a slippery slope cuts both ways. If the government cannot limit liberty based on the conduct of the citizenry then how do we get to send people to prison in the first place? It would be every man for himself. This notion is as old as the writings of Locke and Rousseau.
By sid February 18, 2010 at 11:57 am
I disagree with the “slippery slope” argument. If someone proposed that convicted felons, after serving their time, were subject to these rules, then I’d agree that is a slippery slope. But until their time is served, either in or out, they are subject to a great deal of restrictions that those not convicted would call violations of their rights.
Personally, if someone has served their time, I think they should have all rights automatically restored. If they’re “safe” enough to be out on the streets, then they should be “safe” enough to have their rights restored. That argument could also be made for parole/probation folks, but I’m a realist. It would be hard enough to get the rights of free felons automatically restored, so felons still serving, even if it is out, would be an even tougher sell.
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Lawyer in SC…Of course they can limit liberty based on conduct…But they do not have the right to torture and harass a convict in prison anymore than in free society….Once is in a private domicile I don’t see how you can not convey searching ones private home for no reason without warrant anything less than harassment….(By the way I am not sure why your opinion would be more interesting than mine)
By They call me Mr. Sinister February 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Liberty-I hope you didn’t go to law school, if you did it was a waste of money. If you didn’t (and those of us who did are betting on option 2) its glaringly obvious! Whether you agree with rulings of the SCOTUS, by Constitutional requirement that is the final decision. They’ve ruled and your are still on the wrong side. There is a difference between republicans, libertarians and anarchy. You don’t want a minimalist goverment you want no goverment. Sorry that argument has been settled and again you are on the wrong and losing side. But keep swinging, Ron Paul, Ross Perot and the tin hat squad will get to you…
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 1:00 pm
…This discussion surely leads to question our criminal justice system and prison population..and why we have parole to begin with.
In my opinion if we had the freedoms given to us by god and backed by the constitution,we would probably reduce the inmate population by half.(I assume a real conservative guess)..We would reduce the number of prisons and have a safer society by keeping all the VIOLENT offenders locked up and working off their room and board.
Then by having real criminals serve their full term in prison we could get rid of all the extra bureaucrats in the parole system…and the waste that comes with it
Seriously people…why would you have prostitutes and drug offense people in prison while paroling murderers,rapists and child abusers?? ..
By Liberty For Me February 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“They call me Mr. Sinister”…I will let the posters judge by your comments how much of a lawyer you could be….
I hope if you really have a law degree(which I doubt) that you use it for more than stating the obvious….and painting your narrow thoughts with such a broad brush…Your right,I am a fan of judge Andrew Napolitano.But I am sure you think he is a moron..each to his own opinion..
Yours can be counter balanced with a feather………..
By cfd007 February 18, 2010 at 4:47 pm
So this means we don’t need parole or probation officers?
By WorkingTommyC February 19, 2010 at 10:34 am
This is a state matter so the “Constitutional” argument holds no sway unless it’s about disenfranchising voters based on race or some such or if it’s about changing from a representative form of government within a state.
Despite how the corrupted US Supreme Court has ruled in the past century or so, it is legally up to the states (who are as entitled as much or more in determining Constitutionality as any entity of federal level of government) to decide how to handle such matters. The Supreme Court’s decision on Kelo was the correct action (none) though made for the wrong reasons (fascist-socialist ideology).
It is up to the people of the states to take responsibility and change those kinds of laws to suit them best vs. being forced to accept the micro-managing dictates of an arbitrary decision from an un-elected group of twelve very flawed human beings on the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court is allowed to come in as knights on white horses to “save” an individual citizen from his state (in defiance of the contract the states have with each other to create the federal level of government) then you can bet your life that they’ll ride in as twelve horsemen of the apocalypse to grind their heels into your faces when/if they decide to. That’s why the states are there and so empowered, as acknowledged by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, to protect their own citizens from the central government.
But don’t listen to me if you have any doubts. I’m just reading the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Forgive me if you find that offensive. But, if you have the courage to face the truth, you can always go look it up yourself.
Just as I’m against the fascist Connecticut state government taking private property to benefit businesses, I think the police-state tactic of warrantless searches violates our God-given, inalienable rights and am against it on that basis. This is especially apparent if they’re living with someone or renting a room from someone or otherwise where a search of their premises can be easily seen to violate other citizens’ rights.
The manner and source of solution is another matter entirely. I’m for the people of any state, especially OURS, to get up off their duffs and MAKE CITIZEN GOVERNMENT HAPPEN! Our rights and liberties are only as great as the level of responsibility South Carolinians collectively take on.
Got guts?
By Liberty For Me February 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm
WorkingTommyC….My Bad..I was thinking the SCOTUS sided with Conneticut.
In reality they did..without taking as much heat I guess.
It seems like you and I are the only people left that understand we are supposed to have freedom in this country without the states permission.