The warrantless search of a sex offender’s mobile phone at a supervised release facility was constitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held Aug. 10. Full Article
Related posts
-
IA: Nowhere to go for CCUSO patients
Source: chronicletimes.com 8/31/23 Officials with the Iowa Department of Correctional Services have expressed concern over a... -
IA: Higher reimbursement rates now available for sex offender nursing home units
Source: radioiowa.com 6/6/34 A new law requires the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to... -
ACSOL Action Alert: Comment online TODAY (Jan 31) to oppose Iowa bill HF77, which forces registrants who have completed their registration requirements to renew their registration requirements
All registrants nationwide, and especially Iowa registrants and supporters, please act today to oppose Iowa bill...
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.