Replies

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.

A random drug test would be a warrantless search, would it not? Even more so than having your person or vehicle searched.

Just another instance where people don't really want the Constitution to mean what it says.