Sex Offender's Homes to be Searched without Warrant Whenever a Child is Missing

[Jeff White]

I'm sure that many members will agree with this proposed legislation. But we have to be really careful when we start taking more and more rights away from any group of people. How far a stretch is it for gunowners homes to be searched without warrant whenever there is a shooting?
Jeff

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...13259036009FC6138625711E00179C02?OpenDocument

Missouri offender bill requires no warrants
By Matt Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
02/23/2006

JEFFERSON CITY

Thousands of Missouri sex offenders could have their home searched without a warrant each time a child in their neighborhood is reported missing, under a bill that had a hearing this week.

The measure, by Rep. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, would allow such searches even if law enforcement lacked probable cause to connect the sex offender to a missing child. The bill's only requirement is that the missing child was last seen within three miles of the offender's home.

Schaaf said the measure is justified after the abduction of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida, whose body was found 150 yards from her home at property where a sex offender was staying.


Schaaf also cited common sense as grounds for his bill.

"The reason is simple: When a child is missing and there's a sex offender in the neighborhood, where should you look first?" he asked at a House committee hearing Tuesday evening.

But some of Schaaf's House colleagues are balking at the broad authority his bill would give law enforcement. And there's doubt the measure will be included in a more comprehensive bill being developed in the House.

"It raises all kinds of constitutional questions for me," said Rep. Rick Johnson, D-High Ridge.

Johnson asked Schaaf why police shouldn't continue being required to ask a judge for a warrant if they wish to search a sex offender's home.

Schaaf said that process often leads to delays. More fundamentally, he said, judges would require probable cause, which his bill does not demand.

"When you are a convicted felon, you give up a lot of rights," Schaaf said in an interview. "I'm willing to give up their rights in order to protect children who have gone missing."

No action has been taken so far on Schaaf's proposal, just one of several sex offender bills being pushed by at least a dozen lawmakers this session and most in response to Lunsford's death. The so-called Jessica's Laws, which are under debate in several states, share a common theme of mandatory 25-year sentences and lifetime monitoring for certain violent sex offenders.

Amid the bill stampede, some observers say Missouri lawmakers are competing with one another in seeking to throw the book at sex offenders.

"You kind of have one-upmanship in terms of who can be the toughest," said Rep. Scott Lipke, R-Jackson, who heads the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee.

Lipke is working on a single House bill that would roll together measures from numerous sex offender bills. He said he has not yet decided whether Schaaf's provision on searching offenders' homes would be in the substitute bill. Lipke said he has concerns about the constitutionality of the measure.

In general, leaders in the Legislature have increasingly shown signs of restraint on sex offender legislation. The Senate, for example, is aligning behind a compromise bill that lacks many of the tougher measures filed by lawmakers this year.

Prosecutors across the state have urged lawmakers to step back. In particular they've taken issue with bills that would impose 25-year sentences for a broad range of sex crimes, including statutory rape. Critics say such sentences could be a tough sell to a jury, particularly in a case with little forensic evidence.

[email protected] 573-635-6178

 

[Tim Burke]

I suspect this bill will be found to be unconstitutional.
AFAIAC, it should be unnecessary; we shouldn't be letting convicted pedophiles out.

 

[rmgill]

If they're dangerous enough to track, they're too dangerous to be walking around. If they're not that dangerous (ie not a risk) then they're not worth tracking and doing so violates the intent of the Bill of Rights.

The fellow in Ohio that dragged a girl by the arm back out of the street after she nearly walked out in front of him is the post child for the sex offender registry. Interference with a minor in this case is clearly far and below the scope of what most people consider a sexual predator.

 

[Meplat]

Schaaf said that process often leads to delays. More fundamentally, he said, judges would require probable cause, which his bill does not demand.

Man. Talk about a tough one. This is it. I've got kids, I have nieces and nephews, and I love them dearly.

If my kid were missing, I'd probably be all for it, so I can see why some would think it quite alright. OTOH, where does this end?

IMHO, "child molesters" would be in an entirely separate catagory than "sex offenders"...and there would be no problem. Since study has shown time and again that the recidivism rate for child molesters is nearly 100%, I'd like to see the death penalty instituted and carried out in these cases. Recidivism after lethal injection results in nearly a 0% recidivism rate, and would therefore render the above set of laws moot.

 

[Kodiaz]

The problem with this stuff is it starts with sex offender's and then it gets applied to everyone else.

I can only imagine what books wouldn't be allowed now if porn wouldn't have won its fight in the 60's. It'll start with the sex predators but before you know it it will be we will do no knocks without warrants on law abiding gunowners whenever there is a shooting.


Yuck I'm defending the scum of the earth. Well some of it politicians are scum too.

 

[sm]

I'm sure that many members will agree with this proposed legislation. But we have to be really careful when we start taking more and more rights away from any group of people.

I am against this.

Does not mean I am not concerned about kids and crimes against them...of ALL Natures.

My concerns are the erosion of Rights to allow Tyranny to drown us all.

It won't be long more proposals to "keep kids safe" in implanting RFIDs. Then since that stream is flowing freely, let us implant the elderly in case they pass out, are found and in additon medical information is included on Chips... or Altheimers diseased person wanders off and is lost in the back forty.


We have had a system for too long that works. If a suspicious fire consumes a business, LEO / Fire / Insurance investigators use respective sources and obtain when needed Warrants to check up on known arsonists. Same for a rash of rapes occuring (adults or children), B&Es at businesses, Stolen Property and Fences, ...

My concerns stems from it being too easy to give up Liberties to stay Free.

Easier and Softer way is not the best way to deal with matters sometimes, especially when Tryanny is looking and using these methods to erode more and more Freedoms everyday.

It is one thing to have Yellow Alerts and Morgan Nick Alerts, to have kids pictures made, to educate kids about strangers and parents/ adults about kid's safety and how to teach them.


One has to be careful what they ask for - they just might get it.

Steve

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Sex Offender List

Has anyone here actually looked at a "sex offender list"?

If one does, the first thing you might notice is that the great majority are on the list for statutory rape. Next, when you do the arithmetic, it's easy to realise that most are on the list for a one time offense when they were 18-21 or so for sex with a girl under 18. IOW, the majority of the "offenders" on the list are not the people we should spend time tracking.

The list only needs to be big enough to track actual rapists, pederasts and child molestors. Finally, if they kept the bad guys off the streets there'd be no need for a list.

 

[LawDog]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see "unless he's a sex offender" anywhere in there.

I'm a cop. Sex offenders are my natural prey. However this is going too far.

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

--Friedrich Nietzsche.

In our passion to fight monsters, we are becoming monsters.

LawDog

 

[gc70]

I think some of the legislators in Missouri may be right - this proposal sounds just a wee bit unconstitutional.

 

[LawDog]

If one does, the first thing you might notice is that the great majority are on the list for statutory rape. Next, when you do the arithmetic, it's easy to realise that most are on the list for a one time offense when they were 18-21 or so for sex with a girl under 18. IOW, the majority of the "offenders" on the list are not the people we should spend time tracking.

In Texas, you have Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault and Indecency with a Child. We don't have an offense of Statutory Rape.

Far too many people try to tell me that if a victim's age is 16 and the offender was 18, then it was clearly statutory rape.

As if an 18 year old isn't capable of inflicting traditional rape, or a 16 year old can't be the victim of traditional rape.

It's amazing. If the offenders age is listed as 36, and the victim is listed as 34, then people understand it was probably rape.

If the offenders age is listed as 18, and the victim is listed as 16, then it was "just a harmless boyfriend/girlfriend thing".

So, a 36 year old attacker can drag a 34 year old victim kicking and screaming under the bleachers, but an 18 year old attacker is incapable of doing the same thing to a 16 year old victim?

Is that it? have people decided that 18-21 year old males are incapable of cold blooded brutal rape?

*pfagh*

Unless you know the details of the individual case, don't go assuming that 18-21 year old offender on 15/16 year old victim is "just boyfriend/girlfriend stuff".

LawDog

 

[orangeninja]

I'm going to have to disagree with you Lawdog on the following grounds.

This is a common sense Bill, but from a Constitutional standpoint, if a person is required to register, stay within an area or meet some other form of governmental control not normally associated with citizenship, then it could be argued legally that the person is still under the supervision of the state and therefore not protected by from unreasonable search and seizure clauses within the constitution just as an inmate in a jail cell is not, they are still wards of the state.

This has been challenged before when parolees tried to challenge searches citing the constitution however the exclusionary rule and violation of civil rights have not been found in favor of the parolee as they were wards under the state, though not necessarily locked within a cell at the time….the same may apply for probationers.

Given the increased control over a sex offender such as registering, it may be argued that they are limited wards of the state and that a specific search may be granted upon their premises due to extenuating and exigent circumstances and the search will probably be limited to looking only for the child much like a limited search warrant.

Otherwise it may be argued that forcing sex offenders to register and locking them up if they do not is unconstitutional.

I for one, favor the bill.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see "unless he's a sex offender" anywhere in there.

I'm a cop. Sex offenders are my natural prey. However this is going too far.

I am NOT a cop, but I agree this is going too far.

It is blatantly unconstitutional. If they want to make an exception so that sex offenders don't get Constitutional rights, then they need to amend the Constitution to say that. I'm against it.

Slippery slope argument applies.

 

[Kodiaz]

Registration is unconstitutional. Just remember that first ir will be the hated rapists of children then it will be the feared gunowners. Govt. never gives up power govt. never gives more freedom. Govt. seeks only to broaden its power and our govt. is already way to big and oversteps the bounds of the Bill of Rights every day.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

"How far a stretch is it for gunowners homes to be searched without warrant whenever there is a shooting?"


Isn't that pretty much what happened during the D.C. sniper ordeal?

 

[orangeninja]

Sorry guys, slippery slope does NOT apply. It may be empirically argued that sex offenders recidivate MUCH more often than not and that most sex offenses are committed by former offenders. This is a phenomenon among sex offenders.

Putting gun owner registration next to sex offender registration is nonsensical. Gun owners have not violated the law, gone through the due-process and sentenced by the state. Therefore the argument cannot apply as gun owners have not gone through a court due process and have not been convicted of a crime and at no time were considered wards of the state.

Sex offender registration is no more unconstitutional than being placed on probation or granted parole. Think of it as part of the sentence.

 

[Ezekiel]

This a damned good idea.

As a former Parole Officer, allow me to explain the concept of parole, as it applied in the State of Kansas. In order to be granted parole -- wherein the perp is still under the "direct supervision of the Secretary of Corrections" -- the convicted felon must consent to such search, of person or property, at any time, exactly as it was when he was in prison. This applies for the duration of sentence, as a condition of being on the street.

In theory, I could have rousted anyone, at anytime, in any place occupied by them, for a nonconsentual search merely as a shakedown tactic. (It happened...)

It's really quite simple in our society: convicted felons are not full-rights citizens, nor should they be.

I find it so odd that everyone becomes a "cold, dead fingers" NRA-type who is riding the slippery slope to nutsville whenever anything happens that could even remotely or potentially touch guns. "The folks who want convicted sex offenders registered and monitored are not the folks you need be concerned with.

[ObiWan voice]"These are not the droids you're looking for...[ObiWan off]

 

[silliman89]

LawDog -- #10
In Texas, you have Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault and Indecency with a Child. We don't have an offense of Statutory Rape.

The source of the confusion here may be that you don't have a Statutory Rape charge, although I find that difficult to imagine. As I understand it, consensual sex is part of the definition of statutory rape. It must be consensual sex or it would be plain old rape, not statutory.

The idea is that an old guy, say mid 30's, shouldn't be able to talk an underage girl into sex, even if she agrees. It's just wrong, and there ought to be a law. Now her 17 year old boyfriend is perfectly within his rights have sex with her, until his 18th birthday. After that it becomes statutory rape, even if they've been doing it for years. This is the example people keep bringing up.

At least that's how it was explained to me when I turned 18 and my girlfriend was still sweet 16. It was a crime every time after that.

 

[gc70]

alduro, please clarify the legal technicalities. Do I understand that sex offenders do, in fact, effectively receive life sentences, with the particulars of the nature of their punishment at any given point in the remainder of their lives to be determined by the judicial system?

 

[Car Knocker]

"I'm willing to give up their rights in order to protect children ....

It's nice that Mr. Schaaf is willing to give up somebody else's rights to protect children. Just think how many children could be protected if Mr. Schaaf gave up your right to own a gun. Or just think of all the children that could be protected if Mr. Schaaf, or others like him, gave up our right to privacy and mandated that RFIDs be implanted in everyone. This is a VERY steep slippery slope that Mr. Schaaf is proposing; what can't be justified in the name of protecting children?

 

[orangeninja]

"alduro, please clarify the legal technicalities. Do I understand that sex offenders do, in fact, effectively receive life sentences, with the particulars of the nature of their punishment at any given point in the remainder of their lives to be determined by the judicial system?"

Yes, in effect being convicted as a sex offender is a life altering thing as with any felony. All of your civil rights will not be restored if convicted of a felony in most states.

Case in point, if you are a convicted felon, you are not allowed to own or purchase a firearm.....period. This is a limitation placed upon you after a court following all due-process has convicted you of a crime. You are in essence a "lesser" citizen upon release. This has always been so of our criminal justice system.

A sex offender is also required to register, often for the remainder of their natural lives. The reason is that it has been empirically proven that they are much more likely to recidivate than not. It is not practical to issue a life sentence however; they will be given limited freedoms but at the cost of remaining partial wards of the state.

 

[beerslurpy]

I predict that justice ginsburg will dance a jig before writing the 9-0 opinion striking this down.

 

[gc70]

Yes, in effect being convicted as a sex offender is a life altering thing as with any felony. All of your civil rights will not be restored if convicted of a felony in most states.

Case in point, if you are a convicted felon, you are not allowed to own or purchase a firearm.....period.

So, in general, any or all civil (Constitutional?) rights of a convicted felon are subject to alteration or revocation at the pleasure of the legislature and subject to judicial due-process. Also, conviction of some misdemeanors would appear to have the same effect (i.e. Lautenberg Amendment). Is this correct?

 

[joab]

Initially I wasagainst this thing until alduro piped in.

If sex offenders are actually on some type of probation for life then it is pretty much common practice.

the problem I have now is that there are sex crimes that are not worthy of probation for life status ,like peeing on a street corner ,having an uderage girlfriend while you are in highschool, or humping a sheep.

Violent offenders should have no reasonable expectation of privacy

 

[orangeninja]

"So, in general, any or all civil (Constitutional?) rights of a convicted felon are subject to alteration or revocation at the pleasure of the legislature and subject to judicial due-process. Also, conviction of some misdemeanors would appear to have the same effect (i.e. Lautenberg Amendment). Is this correct?"

Correct. The "State", whether Federal or State may individually prosecute for a crime as a sovereign entity, in fact, both may each prosecute individually for the same crime handing down two separate sentences if it is determined that the criminal act falls under their jurisdiction. This is not protected by the Double Jeopardy laws.

Additionally, whether or not you may think it is fair, it is within the rights of the state to determine the sentence even if the public does not feel the punishment fits the crime. As an example, Louisiana used to give a mandatory life sentence for possession of heroin or even heroin residue, now that was harsh...but legal.

So if you want to be a sex offender, be prepared to pay the price as this would be completely constitutional....and you can take that to the bank.

Being a convicted felon is in effect become a “lesser” citizen. You don’t get a “do over”.

 

[gc70]

Thanks, alduro; your explanation clinches my feelings on the proposed law in question, as well as similar ones.

I have difficulty seeing many criminal acts that would warrant putting a person on probation for life. I have a lot more difficulty seeing the justice involved in the government imposing new punishments (restrictions) after a person has undergone the punishment originally handed down on conviction of a crime. The whole concept that the government can go back and impose new punishments for any sort of old offense is just outrageous.