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

[Jeff White]

Lawdog is absolutely correct. Instead of making a law allowing warrantless seaches for people who are no longer in the custody of DOC (parole, mandatory supervised release) change the law to keep them on parole or mandatory supervised release for as long as they have to register as sex offenders.

Now I'm sure that certain factions would lobby against that, the cost of hiring more parole officers, the increased caseload....But it is preferable to setting a precedent that a class of citizen who is no longer in state custody has no 4th amendment rights.

It's human nature for this idea to be expanded to other crimes. It's not a good idea to allow the camel's nose under the tent.

Jeff

 

[Tim Burke]

recidivism rate for child molesters is nearly 100%...

The brief cites data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which show that rapists are more likely to be rearrested for rape than other offenders are. But that does not mean they are more likely to be rearrested.

Do you have any data that is specific to child molesters? Do you have any data that is specific to pedophiles?

 

[orangeninja]

My point is fella's that the sex offender is still under the jurisdiction of the court just like a Parolee or Probationer. If you doubt it, watch what happens when they violate a term of release, such as registering or going within 300 feet of a school etc. Generally these limitations are for life and are part and parcell of the sentencing phase.

All this does is lower the requirement from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion"....If a child goes missing the police will not have the reason, manpower, resources or time to check every single sex offenders dwelling. Trust me, I live in a moderate sized city and have at least a dozen sex offenders within 6 miles of my house.

What would happen is a child goes missing.

A list of child molesters would be compiled within a certain distance of the missing child.

Those on that list would be searched.

There would be no reason to shake down a guy convicted for mooning someone in college....it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't hold up in court since you could not make a legal argument for reasonable suspicion.

Child Molesters and pedophiles are a very unique breed of sex offender. First of all, they recidivate WAY WAY WAY more often than any other criminal out there, they simply cannot control themselves and an effective psychological treatment has not yet been devised. ------I recommend you read Maladaptive Behavior

Secondly, they follow a predictable pattern or M.O.

Third, they usually operate locally, they don't go five cities out of the way to abduct a child.

Fourth, it is a progressive crime, by the time you've gotten a child molester for actual abduction, they will more often than not also have a vast library of child porn, have possibly fondled a couple of children, have some video tapes of kids at play, etc. THIS IS NOT YOUR NORMAL CRIMINAL. A child molester or pedophile LIVES for what he does. A car thief, bank robber, etc. generally do not. Even rapists may be opportunistic criminals but child molesters and pedophiles are not. They will make molesting children the CORE OF THEIR EXISTANCE and will do everything within their power to be around children.

Doczin....as for creating a 2nd class of citizens, we didn't make them commit a crime and once it is so, you have placed yourself at the mercy of a sovereign authority, an authority which has the right to limit your freedoms and even kill you if you commit such an act as to warrant this type of punishment. Make no mistake, the state has the right to do so and it is very, very Constitutional.

As for this extending to minor infractions, this is an illogical argument, after all, the government is still of the people, when something happens that we as a people despise, it goes away, look at the high-capacity magazine bans. Look at some of the assault weapon bans....gone. In fact I believe Roe v. Wade is in the last throes of death itself. Things change and our government WILL reflect the ideals of society at large, even if slowly, even if you or I disagree. We are in a democracy and the majority will rule.

If you guys are torn up about infringement upon the lives of private citizens then how do you support a military draft? The man drafted (they don't draft women) has to REGISTER with the selective service at age 18 so that if needed the government may pull you from your high paying job, your family, everything you have and are and subject you to being a member of the military, they will change you, arm you and ship you to someplace you've never heard of to fight and die for people you don't know. But it is Constitutional.....

Constitutional does not equal fair and fair does not equal Constitutional...so get that out of your heads. It is a matter of law, and the law, case law and the courts will likely support this bill if passed simply because it is a continuation of something that has been going on since the advent of BAIL within our system. The court's extension of jurisdiction over someone deemed to be the ward of the state.

Last argument, if the law is passed, it will likely (definitely more like) be given what is known as legal limitations and remedies. Kind of like a recipe for enacting such searches that must be followed just like anything else in police procedure. It will not be carte blanc and if sentencing is passed, the court requiring the offender to register, the judge didn't "forget" about the requirement of law, therefore forcing the same judge to issue a warrant after acknowledging a sex offender as a ward of the court is an act in redundancy and not a Constitutional protection.

Fine'

 

[DRZinn]

we didn't make them commit a crime and once it is so, you have placed yourself at the mercy of a sovereign authority, an authority which has the right to limit your freedoms and even kill you if you commit such an act as to warrant this type of punishment. Make no mistake, the state has the right to do so and it is very, very Constitutional.

Notice I never mentioned the Constitution.

Punish them for the crimes they committed, and then return them to the status of citizen, with ALL the rights thereof.

And many are convicted of acts that should never be crimes in the first place; what then?

 

[Jeff White]

alduro said;

My point is fella's that the sex offender is still under the jurisdiction of the court just like a Parolee or Probationer. If you doubt it, watch what happens when they violate a term of release, such as registering or going within 300 feet of a school etc. Generally these limitations are for life and are part and parcell of the sentencing phase.

Here in Illinois, many of these prohibitis are for 10 years after conviction or release..not for life.

There would be no reason to shake down a guy convicted for mooning someone in college....it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't hold up in court since you could not make a legal argument for reasonable suspicion.

This law as reported in the news article doesn't even require reasonable suspicion. All it requires is the person is on the sex offender registry. The search itself would be authorized by law. No reasonable suspicion or probable cause required. The only challenge that could be mounted is to the law itself.

As for this extending to minor infractions, this is an illogical argument, after all, the government is still of the people, when something happens that we as a people despise, it goes away, look at the high-capacity magazine bans. Look at some of the assault weapon bans....gone. In fact I believe Roe v. Wade is in the last throes of death itself. Things change and our government WILL reflect the ideals of society at large, even if slowly, even if you or I disagree. We are in a democracy and the majority will rule.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The constitution and the bill of rights are there to establish rights that can't be taken away by the tyranny of the majority. The assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset, not because it would have failed if put to a referendum. I'm quite convinced that as much as everyone in this country wants to control the lives of those around them, it would have been upheld in a referendum. It was allowed to sunset because the politicians were afraid of us. A vocal minority who wields some political clout.

You can sell the American people anything if you promise it will make them safer. During the late 80s the first Bush administration released polling data that revealed that the majority of the American people believed that 4th amendment protections should be lowered for suspected drug dealers. Why do you think that was? It's because they all had this steroetyped ideal that suspected drug dealers all looked like Al Pacino playing Scarface.

If the state was interested in cutting the recidivism rates of child molestors then it should be prepared to bear the burden of incarcerating them forever or keeping them on parole or supervised release forever.

I guarantee you that if this law were to pass and be upheld as constitutional, you'd see another similar law introducd to deal with another class of crime. Pretty soon we'd just be effectively keeping everyone convicted on a felony or some misdemeanors in some form of custody for life.

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

"Punish them for the crimes they committed, and then return them to the status of citizen, with ALL the rights thereof.

And many are convicted of acts that should never be crimes in the first place; what then?"


Criminologists, Ethics Scholars, Sociologists, Criminal Justice Scholars, etc. all study what is known as social contract theory. The basic idea is that there is a social contract between the government and people; in essence the people are willing to give a certain amount of control over their lives to the government in order that the government offer certain protections and services. When the social contract is violated, the laws will change or there will be revolution.

So in essence, when you are convicted of something you do not feel should be a crime, the people at large disagree with you and have considered it a violation of the mores or customs which lead to a violation of law, therefore the government acting at the behest of the people, will intervene. Your opinion would thus be the minority and though not inconsequential, would not be decisive unless you can successfully argue your point of view to the majority. It's how our government was designed to operate which is part of the genius that is the Constitution.

Once convicted of a crime, your rights are suspended, some rights indefinitely and may include your right to own an arm, to vote, to live wherever you choose, etc. You may think of this as more of a life sentence type of thing. This doesn’t mean fair. Justice does not equate fairness; justice is simply acquiring and maintaining the balance of the greater social contract.

If we get much more in depth I'm going to have to start billing someone.

 

[orangeninja]

alduro said;
Quote:
My point is fella's that the sex offender is still under the jurisdiction of the court just like a Parolee or Probationer. If you doubt it, watch what happens when they violate a term of release, such as registering or going within 300 feet of a school etc. Generally these limitations are for life and are part and parcell of the sentencing phase.

Here in Illinois, many of these prohibitis are for 10 years after conviction or release..not for life.

Response by Alduro in bold
(Response) That is obviously the state’s choice and they have the right to do so. Not all states follow this course.Quote:

There would be no reason to shake down a guy convicted for mooning someone in college....it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't hold up in court since you could not make a legal argument for reasonable suspicion.

This law as reported in the news article doesn't even require reasonable suspicion. All it requires is the person is on the sex offender registry. The search itself would be authorized by law. No reasonable suspicion or probable cause required. The only challenge that could be mounted is to the law itself.

(Response) Actually, the abduction of a child would create an exigent circumstance, which according to case law must be accompanied with reasonable suspicion to execute a warrant less search unless:
a.) The cops like wasting time and
b.) The courts have no opinion on the matter (which of course they always do). Action will not be taken without a defendable reasonable suspicion. The only thing the law will do is lower the requirement from Probable Cause (which could constitute a warrant) to Reasonable Suspicion.
It will be eventually tried in court and the limitation will be articulated, but I can tell you it is already present in the “spirit” of the law. I would venture a guess the news article is a brief and not comprehensive. This would not override current police procedure, merely supplement it.
Quote:
As for this extending to minor infractions, this is an illogical argument, after all, the government is still of the people, when something happens that we as a people despise, it goes away, look at the high-capacity magazine bans. Look at some of the assault weapon bans....gone. In fact I believe Roe v. Wade is in the last throes of death itself. Things change and our government WILL reflect the ideals of society at large, even if slowly, even if you or I disagree. We are in a democracy and the majority will rule.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The constitution and the bill of rights are there to establish rights that can't be taken away by the tyranny of the majority. The assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset, not because it would have failed if put to a referendum. I'm quite convinced that as much as everyone in this country wants to control the lives of those around them, it would have been upheld in a referendum. It was allowed to sunset because the politicians were afraid of us. A vocal minority who wields some political clout.

(Response) Actually the United States became a functional democracy after the election of Andrew Jackson, though we are also a Republic because we “elect” our representation rather than have it appointed. So we are in essence both. The assault weapons ban expired because extending it would have been political suicide in many states at the time. Thus proving once again that they system (though slow) does work.

BTW….politicians are SUPPOSED to be afraid of the will of their constituency, that’s how the system is designed. When they do NOT fear the will of the people is when we have a real problem.

You can sell the American people anything if you promise it will make them safer. During the late 80s the first Bush administration released polling data that revealed that the majority of the American people believed that 4th amendment protections should be lowered for suspected drug dealers. Why do you think that was? It's because they all had this steroetyped ideal that suspected drug dealers all looked like Al Pacino playing Scarface.

(Response) Eventually the truth will always come to light. Losing trust is easy, regaining it is neigh impossible. Just ask Jimmy Carter. BTW, how many here have been personally affected by the Patriot Act or the “lowering” (your definition not mine) of the 4th Amendment for the War on Drugs? Probably nobody here, because it is handled with a great deal of tact, because blowing the public trust has a lasting effect on careers in politics. Just ask Janet Reno.

If the state was interested in cutting the recidivism rates of child molestors then it should be prepared to bear the burden of incarcerating them forever or keeping them on parole or supervised release forever.

(Response) Cut taxes AND extend government services? Somewhere something has to give. Keeping child molesters in prision, segregated and getting them the “treatment” many states require gets into at least 6 figures a year. You don’t want to pay that, I don’t want to pay that, and though it is a nice notion, we have to play the cards we’re dealt and figure out alternatives. –OR- bring back a self-sufficient prison system, which has been condemned as institutional slavery. What’ll it be? What’s the greater evil?
I guarantee you that if this law were to pass and be upheld as constitutional, you'd see another similar law introducd to deal with another class of crime. Pretty soon we'd just be effectively keeping everyone convicted on a felony or some misdemeanors in some form of custody for life.

(Response) I doubt it. Pedophiles and sex offenders strike at the very core of the mores and values of our civilization. You can replace money, or a truck or property, but never a child. Every generation wants something better for the generation after them, when that is cut short for the sexual gratification of a primitive in human skin, it strikes the base nature of our humanity. Sex offenders and pedophiles will get special attention because they need special attention.
---Alduro

Jeff

 

[gc70]

alduro, thank you for your excellent explanations of the technical intricacies of this issue (but please don't bill me ).

Your faith in the marvelous design of our legal system and form of government is reflected in your views. Unfortunately, some of us with differing views fear the ability (and propensity) of mere humans to pervert the system.

 

[orangeninja]

You are right about one thing, I do trust the system, because of the antagonistic design. It was DESIGNED by men who disagree and is perpetuated by men/women who disagree.

The origional Constitution was not gleefully written, at the time it was written there was great disagreement between members of the Constitutional Convention, so the product is compromise. The same thing with the adoption by the states, they were adopted with a Bill of Rights, which again is compromise.

This nation is built upon disagreement and compromise, which is a working system, because:

1.) Almost nobody agrees with everyone
2.) The system has a remedy for that

So yes, I do have faith in the Constitution which I swore to uphold, as did LawDog and a few others here. I trust the design, and though the system is flawed, it's the best game going.

 

[Dead]

This is a step in the wrong direction... What is good for them, will be good for everyone else soon enough...

 

[orangeninja]

I'm still waiting for someone to counter my argument using law......

anyone?

 

[1 old 0311]

GOOD.

 

[Jeff White]

alduro said;

(Response) Actually, the abduction of a child would create an exigent circumstance, which according to case law must be accompanied with reasonable suspicion to execute a warrant less search unless:
a.) The cops like wasting time and
b.) The courts have no opinion on the matter (which of course they always do). Action will not be taken without a defendable reasonable suspicion. The only thing the law will do is lower the requirement from Probable Cause (which could constitute a warrant) to Reasonable Suspicion.
It will be eventually tried in court and the limitation will be articulated, but I can tell you it is already present in the “spirit” of the law. I would venture a guess the news article is a brief and not comprehensive. This would not override current police procedure, merely supplement it.

The law as proposed has nothing to do with exigent circumstances. What it does is authorize a warrantless search of the residence of anyone on the sex offender list if a child is missing. It seems to me that law is designed to elimante the exigent circumstances that would allow the police to ask for a warrant now. From the article:

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.

(Response) Actually the United States became a functional democracy after the election of Andrew Jackson, though we are also a Republic because we “elect” our representation rather than have it appointed. So we are in essence both. The assault weapons ban expired because extending it would have been political suicide in many states at the time. Thus proving once again that they system (though slow) does work.

I don't believe you understand what a democracy is. In a functional democracy almost all issues would be put to a referendum. There would be no constitutional limits on government power, whatever we (through our elected representatives) voted into law would be law. There would be no need for the courts ever to decide if a law was constitutional. We are closer to being a functional democracy now then we were then, but we are still a constitutional republic.

BTW….politicians are SUPPOSED to be afraid of the will of their constituency, that’s how the system is designed. When they do NOT fear the will of the people is when we have a real problem.

That is correct but in many instances they fear the will of a vocal minority of the people. The sunset of the AWB is an example of the vocal minority winning. The great majority of the people in this country couldn't care less if we could have flash hiders and collapsible stocks on our ARs, and most of them when faced with the emotional arguments made by the VPC and Brady Center would gladly vote to extend the ban. It sunset, because we got out in sufficient numbers to and put a scare into the politicians. That is not a sign that the majority of the American people believe we are right. And it's dangerous for us to think that it is.

(Response) Eventually the truth will always come to light. Losing trust is easy, regaining it is neigh impossible. Just ask Jimmy Carter. BTW, how many here have been personally affected by the Patriot Act or the “lowering” (your definition not mine) of the 4th Amendment for the War on Drugs? Probably nobody here, because it is handled with a great deal of tact, because blowing the public trust has a lasting effect on careers in politics. Just ask Janet Reno.

Fourth amendment protections for suspected drug dealers were not lowered in the late 80s despite a few trial balloons that the Bush I administraion floated. So no one was personally effected by that. My point was, that a significant number of Americans were willing to support the idea, if you could believe the poll numbers at the time. And the danger of the patriot act isn't in how it's being handled now, but in how future administrations might use it. Never trust your political friends with more legal power then you'd allow your political enimies to have over you. Your friends won't always be in power.

(Response) Cut taxes AND extend government services? Somewhere something has to give. Keeping child molesters in prision, segregated and getting them the “treatment” many states require gets into at least 6 figures a year. You don’t want to pay that, I don’t want to pay that, and though it is a nice notion, we have to play the cards we’re dealt and figure out alternatives. –OR- bring back a self-sufficient prison system, which has been condemned as institutional slavery. What’ll it be? What’s the greater evil?

Now you're getting into topics that have no relevance to the discussion at hand. How we pay for this is a totally different issue. My personal opinion is that there is nothing unconstitutional about a self sufficient prison system and that the state has an obligation to fund those things it's mandated by it's charter to do (like public safety) before it funds anything else.

(Response) I doubt it. Pedophiles and sex offenders strike at the very core of the mores and values of our civilization. You can replace money, or a truck or property, but never a child. Every generation wants something better for the generation after them, when that is cut short for the sexual gratification of a primitive in human skin, it strikes the base nature of our humanity. Sex offenders and pedophiles will get special attention because they need special attention.

There is nothing to doubt, it's true. Whatever crime is currently in vogue among advocacy groups and in the media will generate this kind of attention. There is legislation pending in Florida right now to issue those convicted of DUI special license plates and empower the police to stop any vehicle bearing those special plates at any time for a field sobriety test. No probable cause required. You can make the same emotional argument for just about any crime and get the people to back excessive measures to elimiate it. Does DUI strike at the very mores and values of our civilization?

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

"The law as proposed has nothing to do with exigent circumstances. What it does is authorize a warrantless search of the residence of anyone on the sex offender list if a child is missing.”

That would constitute an exigent circumstance….a missing child would constitute “exigent” circumstances if within the immediate time and place of the abduction.

“More fundamentally, he said, judges would require probable cause, which his bill does not demand.”

Right, it would reduce the burden to reasonable suspicion.

“I don't believe you understand what a democracy is. In a functional democracy almost all issues would be put to a referendum. There would be no constitutional limits on government power, whatever we (through our elected representatives) voted into law would be law. There would be no need for the courts ever to decide if a law was constitutional. We are closer to being a functional democracy now then we were then, but we are still a constitutional republic.”

I don’t think you understand what I meant; I meant we were a “functional” democracy. Meaning that the Greek democracy failed because it had no system of checks and balances, it was mob rule. The Roman Republic failed because there were no protections for the people from the government who remained detached from the people….Rome rotted from within.

The United States is history’s first functional democracy. I understand what a democracy entails; additionally I understand its limitations. I understand what a republic is and its limitations. So at what point of my argument do you disagree that we are a functional democracy?

“That is correct but in many instances they fear the will of a vocal minority of the people. The sunset of the AWB is an example of the vocal minority winning. The great majority of the people in this country couldn't care less if we could have flash hiders and collapsible stocks on our ARs, and most of them when faced with the emotional arguments made by the VPC and Brady Center would gladly vote to extend the ban. It sunset, because we got out in sufficient numbers to and put a scare into the politicians. That is not a sign that the majority of the American people believe we are right. And it's dangerous for us to think that it is.”

The only think that a politician can base a decision off of is the information immediately at hand. Most Americans don’t vote so you are right stating that most Americans don’t give a rats butt about your flash hider on an AR, my assertion is that those who do vote and are informed, supported the 2nd Amendment as a VOTER majority. Were this NOT so, the bill would have been extended, after all, if you remember this was a bitter fight in both the House and Senate. It was handled with cunning and determinism, give credit where it is due.

“My point was, that a significant number of Americans were willing to support the idea, if you could believe the poll numbers at the time. And the danger of the patriot act isn't in how it's being handled now, but in how future administrations might use it. Never trust your political friends with more legal power then you'd allow your political enimies to have over you. Your friends won't always be in power.”

You are absolutely correct, which is why we have the courts. Once an action is taken to rankle the public, the courts will become involved because of the publics right to sue, mandating a decision. So far nobody has made a convincing legal argument against the Patriot Act, thus if you don’t like it, it would behoove you to take legislative action. Once the Patriot Act is abused, the courts will slap limitations in place faster than you can say “1911 please”.

“Now you're getting into topics that have no relevance to the discussion at hand. How we pay for this is a totally different issue. My personal opinion is that there is nothing unconstitutional about a self sufficient prison system and that the state has an obligation to fund those things it's mandated by it's charter to do (like public safety) before it funds anything else.”

Actually money is always relevant, especially when dealing with politics. What do you think drives the system? As for your opinions on a self sufficient prison, I agree with you, I don’t see anything bad about them. But the courts disagree with both of us and have set case law against them as being unconstitutional. Thus now we are the minority and will remain so until we can get a sufficiently convincing argument to turn the opinions of the majority.

As for funding public safety, oh, the prisons get their money. They tax you and me. The also outsource the work, cut the amount of guards on duty and pay them lower salaries. So what you get is the cheapest prison system money can buy, and one that is overwhelmed, completely ineffective and unsafe.

“There is nothing to doubt, it's true. Whatever crime is currently in vogue among advocacy groups and in the media will generate this kind of attention.”

You are right, but the reason for so much support behind the advocacy groups is because the majority of people agree with their position. It’s that “effective democracy” thing at work again.

“There is legislation pending in Florida right now to issue those convicted of DUI special license plates and empower the police to stop any vehicle bearing those special plates at any time for a field sobriety test. No probable cause required. You can make the same emotional argument for just about any crime and get the people to back excessive measures to elimiate it. Does DUI strike at the very mores and values of our civilization?”

I am not personally familiar with what you are referring to, however a vehicle stop does not require “probable cause” as defined by law now. Reasonable suspicion will suffice for a vehicle stop. Probable cause is when you get into searches against the will and arrests or citations.

Just so you know, testing for a DUI (field sobriety test) is done to ESTABLISH probable cause for an arrest, you may refuse to participate and the state may suspend your license as it is viewed as a privilege and not a right, but at least you don’t get jail time. Probable cause is not required to give a sobriety test, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

As for DUI’s violating the mores and values of our civilization, this would fall under “prohibitions” due to violation of public safety. You could make an argument for the narcissistic action of driving while intoxicated violating the values and mores of society, but on an ethical and sociological plane, a sex offender is at one extreme of the measure, the DUI at the other.

 

[Jeff White]

alduro said;

“More fundamentally, he said, judges would require probable cause, which his bill does not demand.”

Right, it would reduce the burden to reasonable suspicion.

The fourth amendment establishes a higher standard then reasonable suspicion for a search to be conducted.

I don’t think you understand what I meant; I meant we were a “functional” democracy. Meaning that the Greek democracy failed because it had no system of checks and balances, it was mob rule. The Roman Republic failed because there were no protections for the people from the government who remained detached from the people….Rome rotted from within.

The United States is history’s first functional democracy. I understand what a democracy entails; additionally I understand its limitations. I understand what a republic is and its limitations. So at what point of my argument do you disagree that we are a functional democracy?

I think we are arguing over semantics. I dislike the use of the term democracy as it applies to the United States because we most assuredly aren't a democracy under the tradional definition.

The only think that a politician can base a decision off of is the information immediately at hand. Most Americans don’t vote so you are right stating that most Americans don’t give a rats butt about your flash hider on an AR, my assertion is that those who do vote and are informed, supported the 2nd Amendment as a VOTER majority. Were this NOT so, the bill would have been extended, after all, if you remember this was a bitter fight in both the House and Senate. It was handled with cunning and determinism, give credit where it is due.

I was on the front line of the fight against the original ban and to keep it from being extended, that included personal meeting with my congressman. I'm quite willing to give credit where it is due. It's dangerous for those of us who are involved to think that because we won a battle that the majority of the public has been won over to our way of thinking.

Actually money is always relevant, especially when dealing with politics. What do you think drives the system? As for your opinions on a self sufficient prison, I agree with you, I don’t see anything bad about them. But the courts disagree with both of us and have set case law against them as being unconstitutional. Thus now we are the minority and will remain so until we can get a sufficiently convincing argument to turn the opinions of the majority.

As for funding public safety, oh, the prisons get their money. They tax you and me. The also outsource the work, cut the amount of guards on duty and pay them lower salaries. So what you get is the cheapest prison system money can buy, and one that is overwhelmed, completely ineffective and unsafe.

Which is exactly why legislation like this is the camel's nose under the tent. If it's good enough for sex offenders, what class of criminal will we apply it to next. Let's just make the local police defacto parole agents. I don't know how it is in Texas, but up here, we have to make annual checks on registered sex offenders in our jurisdiction. This is not a function of DOC, but of the local police departments. Let a politician think he can pass the financial burden to another level of government and he'll gladly do it. And take credit for coming up with a cheap way to reduce crime in the process.

I am not personally familiar with what you are referring to, however a vehicle stop does not require “probable cause” as defined by law now. Reasonable suspicion will suffice for a vehicle stop. Probable cause is when you get into searches against the will and arrests or citations.

Perhaps in Texas reasonable suspiciion is sufficent for a stop, but the law requires probable cause here. There are circumstances for an investigative stop to be made on reasonable suspicion, but by and large a vehicle stop requires the officer to have probable cause to believe a violation has been committed before a person is detained. Drug interdiction details must be very easy for you to work down there if all you need is reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Do you have any idea how many times we have sat on drug houses and let vehicles we knew were carrying drugs continue on their way because they had no equipment violations and drove well enough that we couldn't establish PC for a stop? I suppose in Texas, the fact the vehcile left a known drug house is enough reasonable suspicion to make the stop. It's not here, at least not in the 4th Judicial Circuit.

Just so you know, testing for a DUI (field sobriety test) is done to ESTABLISH probable cause for an arrest, you may refuse to participate and the state may suspend your license as it is viewed as a privilege and not a right, but at least you don’t get jail time. Probable cause is not required to give a sobriety test, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

Considering I'm state certified to NHTSB standards for DUI Detection and Field Sobriety testing, I'm quite familiar with the process for making a DUI arrest. I have made more then one in 21 years on the job, how many do you have?

It's not comparing apples and oranges at all. The proposed Florida law would give people convicted of DUI a special license plate and an officer could stop a car bearing such a plate at any time, for no reason, and require FSTs or the implied consent laws would kick in. Maybe in Texas you can stop anyone you want and chek them for DUI but up here I have to be able to articulate erratic driving (theres one of the reasonable suspician stops) or a traffic violation which is probable cause to make the stop. And up here without dashcam evidence of the erratic driving, you're liable to get the entire arrest suppressed in a motion to suppress hearing if the suspect has a good attorney.

As for DUI’s violating the mores and values of our civilization, this would fall under “prohibitions” due to violation of public safety. You could make an argument for the narcissistic action of driving while intoxicated violating the values and mores of society, but on an ethical and sociological plane, a sex offender is at one extreme of the measure, the DUI at the other.

This is true, but we're talking about proposed laws that would eliminate some 4th amendment protections from both classes of offender....Tell me that's not a slippery slope.

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

“The fourth amendment establishes a higher standard then reasonable suspicion for a search to be conducted.”

Not under exigent circumstances according to case law.

“I was on the front line of the fight against the original ban and to keep it from being extended, that included personal meeting with my congressman. I'm quite willing to give credit where it is due. It's dangerous for those of us who are involved to think that because we won a battle that the majority of the public has been won over to our way of thinking.”

I agree that we shouldn’t lower the guard yet, however I think most voting Americans agree with the 2nd Amendment.

“Which is exactly why legislation like this is the camel's nose under the tent. If it's good enough for sex offenders, what class of criminal will we apply it to next. Let's just make the local police defacto parole agents. I don't know how it is in Texas, but up here, we have to make annual checks on registered sex offenders in our jurisdiction. This is not a function of DOC, but of the local police departments. Let a politician think he can pass the financial burden to another level of government and he'll gladly do it. And take credit for coming up with a cheap way to reduce crime in the process.”

Honestly I don’t know how it is in Texas either as I am not a state peace officer or corrections official. I do know that the Texas Parole system is fouled up though and I believe the state should be responsible for execution of probation enforcement, not the county, but that’s not the topic here.

I don’t think this Bill makes the police responsible for a parolee or a sex offender. It does however provide a means for police to deal with sex offenders should the situation arrive. I’m not seeing an undue burden on police here, in fact, just the opposite.

“Perhaps in Texas reasonable suspiciion is sufficent for a stop, but the law requires probable cause here. There are circumstances for an investigative stop to be made on reasonable suspicion, but by and large a vehicle stop requires the officer to have probable cause to believe a violation has been committed before a person is detained. Drug interdiction details must be very easy for you to work down there if all you need is reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Do you have any idea how many times we have sat on drug houses and let vehicles we knew were carrying drugs continue on their way because they had no equipment violations and drove well enough that we couldn't establish PC for a stop? I suppose in Texas, the fact the vehcile left a known drug house is enough reasonable suspicion to make the stop. It's not here, at least not in the 4th Judicial Circuit.”

Actually, those investigative stops you referred to was what I was referring to. I think you misunderstood me. As you are aware, there ARE circumstances when detainment for investigation is perfectly legal and does not require probable cause. This is huge gray area legally as of now. As for the drug interdiction stuff, I don’t do that, but I imagine that Texas peace officers play by the same rules you do.

“Considering I'm state certified to NHTSB standards for DUI Detection and Field Sobriety testing, I'm quite familiar with the process for making a DUI arrest. I have made more then one in 21 years on the job, how many do you have?”

Congrats on your experience but that doesn’t make you right….neither of us are lawyers but if you want to make a legal argument and not throw around credentials, then I’m listening. Like I said before, I’m not a peace officer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I am intimately familiar with procedural law.

“It's not comparing apples and oranges at all. The proposed Florida law would give people convicted of DUI a special license plate and an officer could stop a car bearing such a plate at any time, for no reason, and require FSTs or the implied consent laws would kick in. Maybe in Texas you can stop anyone you want and chek them for DUI but up here I have to be able to articulate erratic driving (theres one of the reasonable suspician stops) or a traffic violation which is probable cause to make the stop. And up here without dashcam evidence of the erratic driving, you're liable to get the entire arrest suppressed in a motion to suppress hearing if the suspect has a good attorney.”

Like I said, the DUI stop is based on suspicion not probable cause. The field sobriety test is what builds upon the probable cause, as you have stated, the camera may be used as evidence. I don’t think we disagree here other than you are lumping a sex offender and DUI convict in the same barrel, whereas I say they have nothing in common. I would be against the DUI offender having special plates, but then, that’s just me.

“This is true, but we're talking about proposed laws that would eliminate some 4th amendment protections from both classes of offender....Tell me that's not a slippery slope.”

Okay, that’s not a slippery slope, the rights of the convicted are suspended, whether indefinitely or not, do you disagree? If so, then how do you explain a life sentence?

Again, I consider the registration an extension of the original sentence.

And Jef...er...moderator...there's not a heck of a lot of difference between Texas and wherever it is you're a cop..Illinois is it?..we're on the same side guy.

 

[Jeff White]

alduro said,

And Jef...er...moderator...there's not a heck of a lot of difference between Texas and wherever it is you're a cop..Illinois is it?..we're on the same side guy.

Agreed, but here is my point as it pertains to the proposed law. Say a child comes up missing. As soon as the investigation starts, someone is going to start knocking on doors of the registered sex offenders in the area. We already do that. The way I read it, (and I haven't seen the law, just the news article) under the provisions of the law, the officers can just search at that time. No warrant, no probable cause just show up at the door and: "There's a child missing from two blocks over. Would you stand aside while we search your home." And because the subject is a convicted sex offender, he/she has given up all 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure whenever a child is missing for life.

And the proposed Florida DUI law (which I haven't found online yet but I will find the reference) says that a person convicted of DUI is issued a special license plate and the police have the right to stop the car bearing that plate any time, without probable cause or reasonable suspician. So the person convicted of DUI has given up his/her 4th amendment protections as it pertains to driving.

We have two crimes one at the high end of the spectrum and one not quite as serious and because both have high recidivisim rates lawmakers in two states have suggested that we should suspend their constitutional rights forever.

So what we are effectively saying is that we intend to keep two classes of criminals under a form of state supervision forever if these laws are passed. Be convicted of one of those crimes and you are essentially receiving a life sentence.

My experience from watching how the legislators want to grab headlines by proposing laws to solve crime (instead of enforcing the laws we have) is that that's the camel's nose a little farther under the tent. We're already solving domestic violence by taking away an officer's discretion about making arrests, passing laws mandating that couples be disarmed after a domestic dispute, disarming people who had misdemeanor convictions years before the law required them to give up their RKBA for a misdemeanor conviction.....Can you see where I'm going with this? Where does it stop? Instead of addressing the actual problem (there aren't enough prison and hospital beds to confine and treat these criminals) we're writing exceptions to the bill of rights into law so that a politician can say I passed (insert childs name here) Law, that allows the police to search registered sex offenders homes without a warrant or I passed (insert DUI crash fatilities name here, preferably a child's) Law that brand the cars of DUI offenders with the scarlett letter of an offender and give the polce the right to stop it whenever they want to make sure that person is driving sober.

How many exceptions to the bill of rights are you willing to accept? I've reached my limit. I think we're well on the way down the road to where the bill of rights has so many exceptions to it that it's meaningless.

Like Lawdog said, we have to make sure that we don't become the monster we're hunting.

Jeff

 

[orangeninja]

I agree about your belief on the DUI thing...I don't agree with that law at all. I still disagree with the sex offender thing because I PERSONALLY know that:

1.) We don't know the half of what that scumbag has done, only what we caught him for. When dealing with forensic psychological profiling, you will see that they generally get caught after years and years of doing it to where they become relaxed about the nature of the crime, thus becoming sloppy.

2.) They will recidivate. I belive 100% of the time, though most experts think it's only about 99% of the time. What can I say, I'm a pessimist.

Lastly, pedophilia is a lifelong condition deserving a life long sentence. If we can't lock 'em up forever, this would be the next best thing. I would have no problem saying:

"Excuse me Mr. Child Rapist, a little girl is missing, get out of the way while I search your house."

Lastly I am not basing my belief on emotion, but upon case law concerning sex offender registration and probation and parole. This law really isn't a new phenomenon, it's just being applied to a newer, and much deserving group. A little research will reveal that child molesters have a plethora of child porn and generally will begin to view it again before actually commiting a crime (by crime I mean upon a phsycial child, of course child porn is illegal as well), thus you may be able to prevent one. Being that pedophilia may be clinically diagnosed and that it is a lifetime condition, I see Constitutional grounds for this law to pass just like you can force psychological checkups for the mentally unstable or hold a psycho for life, without benefit of a trial, which also has been upheld in court.

If viewed from a mental condition perspective, it's easier to get around the slippery slope argument.

Likewise if viewed strictly from a legalistic point of view.

 

[BigRobT]

I'm only speculating here, but does this bill have something to do with the girl in Fla?? If so, that pedophile was living at a trailer and his whereabouts was unknown to the police. So, let's say the police go to a pedophile's last known address, nobody's home, they do a search of the property, maybe find something else illegal, and then find out that the apartment/ house/ dwelling had been rented/ sold/ conveyed to somebody else?? Does that search become illegal and that person escape the true justice that should be dealt them?? From what I understand, many states have a very difficult time in keeping track of pedophiles. Personally, I think this is the wrong road to travel. There has to be a better way, such as somebody mentioned earlier in the thread, (I think LawDog). IF they are a released pedophile, the KEEP them on parole indefinitely or until they die. Then it becomes an easier matter to handle. We won't have to subrogate anybody's rights that way.

As I see it, first it will be pedophiles, then it becomes violent felons, then it becomes non-violent felons, and ultimately, it gets down to the average Joe Citizen. I won't even bring in the gun ownership situation into the scenario. Where does it stop?? '

I have to wonder, has pedophilia really become any more prevalent in society over the last 50 years or are we just hearing more about it?? IIR, on a per capita basis, it hasn't. I could be wrong in my recollection, though.

And the proposed Florida DUI law (which I haven't found online yet but I will find the reference) says that a person convicted of DUI is issued a special license plate and the police have the right to stop the car bearing that plate any time, without probable cause or reasonable suspician. So the person convicted of DUI has given up his/her 4th amendment protections as it pertains to driving.

Minnesota already has these types of plates. And the rule here is exactly as you stated. I don't like the law, myself. I see the so called "whiskey plates" on many vehicles and it does nothing except tag that vehicle as a potential "drunk driver". I have NEVER seen one pulled over for any arbitrary reason. Can we say "The Scarlet Letter" ??

 

[DRZinn]

So in essence, when you are convicted of something you do not feel should be a crime, the people at large disagree with you and have considered it a violation of the mores or customs which lead to a violation of law, therefore the government acting at the behest of the people, will intervene.

Yes, I understand the "social contract" idea quite well, thank you very much, and disagree with it. What you've stated here implies that "the people at large" have been consulted on every law. Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't give "the people at large" the right to tell me I can't do what I want to do as long as it harms no-one.

 

[mbt2001]

Legislation like this is disgusting...

When someone serves there time, they should be admitted back into society. If they are still "dangerous" then they shouldn't be released again. Why are we letting folks that every one knows have a high recidivism rate back on the streets??? If you ask me this is something that will usher in the Police State. Restrictions on every one, for there own good.

I hate the fact that people can be persecuted for years and MAY BE INNOCENT of the charge to begin with. Sexual Assault is hard to prove and is often used as a revenge tactic...

I find it odd that people oppose the death penalty, but will allow someone to be persecuted until there life ends and they don't consider that cruel and unusual punishment. Death would be more kind in instances like this.

If you live in the area, contact your rep and vote no. This is joke legislation that will keep no one safe. Allowing folks to carry guns and use them, putting criminals behind bars for good and educational programs are what should be promoted, not pie in the sky political crap.

 

[orangeninja]

"Yes, I understand the "social contract" idea quite well, thank you very much, and disagree with it. What you've stated here implies that "the people at large" have been consulted on every law. Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't give "the people at large" the right to tell me I can't do what I want to do as long as it harms no-one."

Well Doczin, then you may just be an anarchist. After all, every civilization on the planet is formed from some type of social contract. Even if you go back to the cavemen, if one kills another, then the victim's family may seek revenge. There is an implied social contract that were you to kill someone, you yourself deserve to be killed. (Loose example but bear with me).

Social contract does not believe that everyone has been consulted, it is enough that everyone be able to have their say or choose their representative.

The U.S. Constitution is the foremost organized example of a social contract on earth, if you don't believe in that, then why are we debating over the Constitutionality of anything...you have no belief to base even the most basic of arguments upon.

If you don't think the people at large don't have the right to tell you what to do if it is what you percieve as a victimless crime, then I recommend you find out what happens if you are caught....you don't have to believe in their authority, but that doesn't change the fact that they do have it.

 

[gc70]

I agree about your belief on the DUI thing...I don't agree with that law at all. I still disagree with the sex offender thing because I PERSONALLY know that:

The same method is being used to achieve two results, one of which you like and the other you do not.

Maybe it would be better to achieve the desired result in a different way rather that taking an expeditious path to the desired result that also leads to other undesirable consequences.

 

[DRZinn]

Social contract does not believe that everyone has been consulted, it is enough that everyone be able to have their say or choose their representative.

I call BS. There are still human rights to be respected, including the right to do ANY DAMN THING I WANT THAT DOESN'T HARM ANYONE ELSE.

The U.S. Constitution is the foremost organized example of a social contract on earth, if you don't believe in that, then why are we debating over the Constitutionality of anything

We aren't. Show me where I mentioned the Constitution.

If you don't think the people at large don't have the right to tell you what to do if it is what you percieve as a victimless crime, then I recommend you find out what happens if you are caught

And that makes it right?

 

[Tim Burke]

I agree about your belief on the DUI thing...I don't agree with that law at all. I still disagree with the sex offender thing because I PERSONALLY know that:

1.) We don't know the half of what that scumbag has done, only what we caught him for...

2.) They will recidivate.

1.) We don't know how many times the driver has driven drunk, we only know how many times we've caught him.

2.) A lot of drunk drivers are repeat offenders.

I find the DUI law less intrusive than this new law.