Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Supervised release. What’s the controversy? Seems to me the guy has impulse control issues and probably belongs in custody anyway.

I’m unsure why this rates as a topic on here. The man had contraband (phone) in a supervised release facility. Just like anyone on parole/probation, his stuff is subject to warrantless searches.

What I find ironic, is that it seems the only reason this topic got posted was because it had to do with a RC. This isn’t a whole lot different than other stories that needlessly point out someone is a RC (the 81 y.o. suicide is a prime example). Personally, I see no story here…and am surprised it went so high in the courts.

Our government is deviating around the constitution so they can have the authorization to scrutinize registered citizens and invade their privacy as if they have something to hide, and do this to show as proof of the “high recidivism rate” of registered citizens and sending them back to prison. Correct me if I’m wrong but internet crimes and sex crimes are two different things right?

I’m also confused how this is an issue.

Three years ago when my sentence was finalized I had a blanket okay to search whatever while I was on supervision. Then about half way into my 3 years of probation I had to go back to court because apparently some ruling came down that allowed for search of various computer devices (including the phone) without a warrant. I, along with everyone else, was surprised that we had to go back to court to modify our sentence to now explicitly allow warrantless search of our devices was allowed; we all already assumed that was how it was.

So, again, I fail to see how this is an issue?

I guess the point is that the one who challenges the rule is the one with the illegal pictures on his phone. The hundreds or thousand who have their phones searched and there is nothing illegal to be found, why is there nothing to challenge then?

This guy was very poor candidate for a court case. He or his family must of had money. This is kind of a guy makes it hard on RC’s.

It was the byline of the article. No controversy here. This guy was an idiot and deserved what he got. After given one grace for having his phone in the corrections facility, he does it again. Second, to have child porn on it it has to put him on an IQ level with Trump. Blame Bloomberg for the incorrect article caption.

So they no longer need probable cause or reasonable suspicion? This is exactly why I don’t own a cell phone, which probably pisses them off because it’s one less thing they can pilfer through and track me with.

Supervised release facility pretty much covers warrantless searches anyway. Adding phones to the list via court action was to quash any form of future legal challenge. The same rules apply when you are on probation, you have to let the police or your PO into your residence.

This guy is an idiot and is in deep denial of what he needs to be working on to succeed. Impulse issues is an understatement. That being said, this particular case will be used against us to show that we cannot be released, trusted or even be redeemed in the larger issue of public safety.