Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Mmmm. If you're on parole, it means you haven't completely paid your debt to society. Should you have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen?
1 posted on 04/03/2010 1:23:29 PM PDT by smokingfrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: smokingfrog
First they came for the paroles....

We are on a very steep, very slippery slope now. I don't want any more loopholes for you-know-who's thugs to invade my privacy.

2 posted on 04/03/2010 1:26:56 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog

It’s a slippery slope, I’m glad Sanford did this.


3 posted on 04/03/2010 1:28:47 PM PDT by Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog
If the individual was not on parole, he would be in prison, where no warrants are needed for searches. It is only as a convenience to the state that they are not in prison serving their sentences.

In many states an excon does not regain his 2nd Amendment rights.

Not only do I have no constitutional problem with warrantless searches for parolees, I encourage them.

4 posted on 04/03/2010 1:36:46 PM PDT by Jacquerie (More Central Planning is not the solution to problems caused by Central Planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog
"...the measure allows would have allowed officers to bypass
going to a judge for a warrant before searching people on probation or parole..."

"the protection from unreasonable searches is an essential safeguard of liberty..."
-
On first blush, I am with the Governor on this one.
If you think you have a concern, take it to a judge.
5 posted on 04/03/2010 1:47:20 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Greetings, and how are you today, comrade?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog
You can still search their homes, just go to the judge and get a warrant.

The weight falls back on the parole board; if the person is so untrusted for parole that unwarranted searches are needed, then that person is still untrustworthy and should have be held in prison to serve his/her time.

"Parole" is a trial, of sorts; by the time the person makes parole, s/he should have been reviewed, interviewed, and evaluated for his/her fitness to re-enter society. If there is any doubt, the parole board should err on the side of caution and keep them inside (prison).

The parole board - knowing parolees are subject to 'pop' searches - might send someone out too early, thinking the police will catch anything they might do wrong. The police have enough to do without baby-sitting parolees.

Even if they do get parole, they still have to report regularly to parole officers, have random drug tests, etc. Parole officers should be trained to detect anything not in the range of 'normal' and notify officers who can then go to the judge and get a warrant.

It IS a slippery slope...if we let the camel's head into the tent, it won't be long before the rest of him comes in too.

Mark Sanford called it right, and is sticking to the Constitution, which is sorely missing in America these days. I applaud him for his courage and loyalty to the Constitution.

Everyone just needs to act line grown up boys and girls and follow the rules, and all of this nonsense would be a moot point.
9 posted on 04/03/2010 1:56:09 PM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog

Nope I don’t think so. Parolee’s are still under the control of the State correctional department.

They just get to go home because they aren’t considered dangerous enough to keep in prison, but they still have not completed their debt to society.

Now I don’t think the police can go ransack their house looking for something, but I think they can stop by and take a visual look at any time.

Once probation/parole is over though I think they should have the same rights, including the unwritten right to privacy.


10 posted on 04/03/2010 1:57:11 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog; Jacquerie; Clemson7; AmishDude

The major problem with this bill is that it did not distinguish between searching the parolees property and the property of the one the parolee lives with. If you let a parolee live with you, they would be free to search your home with no warrant.

Not sure why they left it that way because the bill did distinguish between the parolees vehicle and a vehicle that the parolee only borrowed or rode in.

The Governor was right.


20 posted on 04/03/2010 2:18:36 PM PDT by Between the Lines (AreYouWhoYouSayYouAre?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog

If authorities suspect a parolee enough to search without a warrant, then I guess they fracked up the parole determination, didn’t they?


21 posted on 04/03/2010 2:24:01 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog

Sanford just saved the state a lot of money with this veto. First person that would have been searched without a warrant would have won the lottery.

Remember, the cops ARE NOT your friends.


42 posted on 04/03/2010 9:06:03 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: smokingfrog

A person on parole is a prisoner, given the privilege of serving part of his sentence outside of prison. Just like inmates, they should be subject to warrantless searches.

Sanford is an adulterer and a soft on crime RINO who cares more about thugs than their law abiding victims.


45 posted on 04/04/2010 6:09:48 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson