SCOTUS decides important case on 4th Amendment
If you regularly read our weekly updates you might remember one from a couple months ago, in which we wrote about a oral arguments in a case having nothing to do with Sex Offender laws, but still critically important for those on the registry because it dealt with the 4th Amendment (searches and seizures). The case was Caniglia v. Strom and if you need to remind yourself, I recommend reading the weekly update again: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/weekly-update-2021-03-24-ref142/
Yesterday, the Order came out and it was unanimous! The Supreme Court of the United States held that law enforcement’s “community caretaking” tasks are not an open license to infringe on one of our most sacred rights, the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”!
This means that unless you are on probation or the officer has a warrant in their hands, they have no business snooping around your property, going into your backyard, looking through windows or asking to come inside while doing their address verification. If they do any of these, you should politely tell them to leave!
If you want, you can hand them a copy of the SCOTUS decision on their way off your driveway!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
THANK YOU FAC FOR LETTING EVERYONE KNOW!
(I found out late last night!!!!)
THIS WILL GIVE ME THE LEGAL LEVERAGE IN MY CURRENT SITUATION
THANK YOU FOR LETTING EVERYONE KNOW!
“This means that unless you are on probation or the officer has a warrant in their hands, they have no business snooping around your property, going into your backyard, looking through windows or asking to come inside while doing their address verification. If they do any of these, you should politely tell them to leave!”
Then why do they have any business telling us to report to the county jail for interrogation 4 times each year?!!! (or face felony prosecution for refusing to do so)
If my home is sacrosanct, then certainly my “quiet enjoyment” is, as well ??
Quiet Enjoyment? That spawns in my mind the ability to quell the tactic they use with the mass grouping of LE armed for battle with protective gear and loud announcements of their presence. With this SCOTUS decision, can that tactic be ceased legally in court by order? I hope so. There is no need for the self-serving spectacle.
The most encouraging thing about this decision is that it was unanimous. It would be nice if the Court would also put a stop to the entrapment tactics of law enforcement as well. A lot of taxpayer money is spent paying officers to try to tempt people to commit crimes, all to pad their own resume, another notch in their guns metaphorically. There are a lot of people in prison today for committing crimes where there was no actual victim.
The irony is, Megan’s Law (SORNA) or whatever, STILL circumvents reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes because of personal information being doxxed on the registry.
Please provide references to this point, not withstanding probation/parole LE can do nothing.
Does this restrict federal probation officers in any way? They seem to operate under the Plain View Doctrine anyway. That is, they don’t snoop in back yards or in chests of drawers or thst sort of thing but anything in plain view is fair game.
This does not apply to people who are on probation.
Probation CAN search.
Curious, probation officers cannot search with impunity. Their authority is somewhat limited. For instance, searches of cell phones are not permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine; they generally require a search warrant (Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)). A warrantless search of a cell phone may be authorized by the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases. That is just one example though.
Search-incident-to-arrest doctrine relates to an arrest, not to someone on probation.
Probation IS allowed to search and particularly with respect to people on the registry and electronic devices it’s almost always expressly mandated.
FAC volunteers, if you read my post it expressly said “they generally require a search warrant” To clarify,, this means sometimes they don’t need a search warrant. Bottom line is probation officers are also limited by the constitution. They do not have a blank check as you implied.
It’s true that Probation can’t search “with impunity,” unless that’s what the Judgement Order allows.
AWA’s standard is “reasonable suspicion.”
Yes, in the State of Florida, SO probationers expressly waive the right to the prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures as a condition of their probation.
In other words, if you are on SO probation in Florida, any law enforcement (of any kind) can conduct a warrantless search of you and your immediate possessions/living quarters.
I strongly suspect that the same deal is routinely written into federal probation orders.
The point is that there is a bright line between the rights of people who are under supervision–whether state or federal–and those who are not. Note that the registry is NOT supervision, so you do not relinquish your 4th Amendment rights, period. LE may try to BS or intimidate in order to gain access. Don’t fall for it. For those who aren’t on supervision, I offer the following advice:
Under no circumstances should you consent to a search of your home, vehicle or telephone. By giving consent, you relinquish your 4th Amendment rights. It is not unheard of for police to plant evidence, so keep the 4th Amendment in your legal arsenal.
Understand what constitutes the legal definition of “curtilage.” Close your gates to establish the boundary.
Close your front curtains. Police have the right to be on any part of your property that is available to the general public. That includes the front porch. If they see something through the window, it is considered in “plain view” and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Never step outside. They may ask you to, but your strongest 4th Amendment rights are at the threshold of your home. Correspondingly, never let them in without a valid warrant. Ask for a copy, and read it.
I’m sure there are other bits of advice, but those are the ones that come to mind.
The 4th Amendment is one of the most convoluted of legal subjects, full of nuance. It is also one of our most potent constitutional protections, particularly when applied to our homes. While this decision concerned the amendment’s “community caretaker” exception, there are others, e.g. “exigent circumstances,” “independent source,” and “inevitable discovery.”
Veritas.
I wonder how far reaching this SCOTUS ruling goes. I have read where some Registered Citizens were directed to turn over cell phones when doing re-reg. It might be worth while to have a copy of this ruling when going to the registration sites. Thoughts?
Nobody should turn over their cell phone. Anyone who was forced to do this should contact us.
I have reached out to FAC and never heard back. Granted different issues, but still never heard back after submitting my information on the website submission form
Under a case consideration form? or have you emailed membership or info?
I don’t even show up to registration with my phone on my person. I bring nothing inside except my ID and a single key to the door of my car. That’s it.