I have no problem at all with this type of search.
If a person doesn't want to sign the agreement as a condition of their probation then they should sit in jail and serve their full term.
Seems pretty cut and dry.
| Northwest Indiana Discussion http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/ |
|
| Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=8569 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Mirage [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake ... 672d1.html Ind. Supreme Court rules no additional criminal behavior needed for a search of person on probation INDIANAPOLIS | A probation officer or police officer may search the home, car or body of a person on probation so long as the search is reasonable, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. In overturning a decision out of Jay County, the state's high court said that when a person signs his or her probation agreement, that person is consenting to be searched regardless of whether the person is suspected of additional criminal behavior. Allan M. Schlechty, 22, was convicted of burglary in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison and six years probation. As a condition of his probation, he agreed to "reasonable warrantless searches" of his person and property. In June 2008, Schlechty was suspected of following and attempting to lure a 13-year-old girl into his car while she was on her way to school. Schlechty's probation officer and two police officers conducted a warrantless search of his car and found marijuana. He was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana. However, the Jay County court and the Indiana Court of Appeals both said the marijuana was the product of an illegal search conducted as part of an investigation into the alleged stalking and could not be used against Schlechty. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, ruling 5-0 that, as a probationer, Schlechty was not entitled to the same constitutional protection from searches as noncriminals. Specifically, the court found that so long as any search of a probationer is conducted reasonably -- such as, not tearing apart his or her home in the middle of the night -- police do not have to suspect additional criminal activity to justify the search. In a separate incident, Schlechty was convicted and sentenced last year to 40 years in prison for child molesting. My biggest problem with this ruling is that what is permissible seems a bit too vague. Next is whether the nature of the crime previously committed should be taken into consideration. Obviously someone who committed tax fraud is not the same as a child molester or drug convict. I am a bit uneasy for such a broad power because at some point it can be deemed reasonable to toss out Constitutional guarantees of due process for anybody. We already have the Patriot Act treading dangerous waters Constitutionally. It is all too easy to say once a convict, always a criminal. And as you know I have issue with many criminals being sent out on probation especially when some of them should never see the light of day again. So it's easy to understand why some feel a need to be free of the Constitutional process for search & seizure. But to me it is more troubling how our Constitutional rights are getting pecked away in the name of a good excuse. |
|
| Author: | USMarine [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
I have no problem at all with this type of search. If a person doesn't want to sign the agreement as a condition of their probation then they should sit in jail and serve their full term. Seems pretty cut and dry.
|
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
That's just the problem. Such things are seldom so cut & dry, nor do I believe it is here. So just because you are on probation police can shake you down anytime, anyplace? Do you not see how this can be abused? It opens the door for less than ethical police conduct. What's to prevent a cop with a dislike for the the person to constantly harass the person for personal reasons? They can't so easily move away from a cop with a beef. |
|
| Author: | USMarine [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
Mirage wrote: That's just the problem. Such things are seldom so cut & dry, nor do I believe it is here. So just because you are on probation police can shake you down anytime, anyplace? Do you not see how this can be abused? But that is a condition of being released early. If you don't want to abide by the terms or agree to the terms then serve the full sentence. Mirage wrote: What's to prevent a cop with a dislike for the the person to constantly harass the person for personal reasons? They can't so easily move away from a cop with a beef. It happens every day. If a cop doesn't like you and wants to harass you there isn't very much you can do about it except put your house on the market and move to a different city. You don't have to be on probation to be the victim of police harassment. Go figure. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
Yea, but if you are on probation you aren't allowed to move 1,000 miles away. Out of sight, out of mind, and out of jurisdiction. |
|
| Author: | Chairman Mao [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
I'm with Marine here. Mirage wrote: Allan M. Schlechty, 22, was convicted of burglary in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison and six years probation. As a condition of his probation, he agreed to "reasonable warrantless searches" of his person and property. He agreed to surrender his freedoms for what I believe was too lenient of a sentence in the first place. USMarine wrote: Seems pretty cut and dry. He agreed to have people check up to make sure he was following the law. He didn't comply. He's a chronic lawbreaker. Lock him up and throw away the key. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
He who? I'm talking about the law, not the case. All I'm saying is it delves into dangerous territory but such a law at least needs a better set of boundaries. As it is there's nothing to prevent a cop from pulling somebody out of church on a weekly basis to look for contraband. The only thing stated in the article is that you can't trash someone's home without due process. |
|
| Author: | Chairman Mao [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
Mirage wrote: As it is there's nothing to prevent a cop from pulling somebody out of church on a weekly basis to look for contraband. The only thing stated in the article is that you can't trash someone's home without due process. I find it amusing that you are trying to paint cops as unreasonable tyrants, while trying to paint criminals as weekly church attendants in the same breath. |
|
| Author: | karent [ Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another Slippery Slope of Freedoms |
Keep your nose clean until off probation or go back to jail - no problem from my seat. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|