http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/157607165.html2011 Judgment and order affirmed.The state Supreme Court is set to rule Friday on whether a sentencing judge essentially can eliminate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights by allowing police to search the person, their vehicle or residence for guns at any time and without probable cause or even suspicion.
The court got the case in July after the Court of Appeals certified it as "a novel issue of statewide importance that is certain to recur."
Tally Ann Rowan, 36, of Ellsworth crashed her car while intoxicated in 2008, then threatened to shoot emergency workers who arrived at the scene to help her and to kill a police officer’s family. At the hospital, she grabbed and injured a police officer’s thumb as he tried to restrain her so she could be medicated.
She had a gun in her car and also was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.
Rowan was convicted at trial of battery to a law enforcement officer and sentenced to 14 months incarceration plus three years of extended supervision. One of the conditions of the supervision was that she, her house and her car could be searched any time by any law enforcement officer.
Rowan argued that the condition was unreasonable.
The state says it’s allowable under a “special needs” analysis, because the community needed extra protection from Rowan having a gun, and the judge believed the specter of a search any time would motivate her not to possess a firearm. Prosecutors cite a U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed California authorities to search parolees without suspicion, noting that parole is more like imprisonment than is probation.
Other novel conditions have been upheld in the past, including a person not have any more children until outstanding child support is paid, and that a man have no intimate or sexual relationships without approval of his probation agent.
But the appellate judges in Rowan’s case noted that those cases had ways to be resolved — pay up a debt or notify an agent — while Rowan would remain subject to search for the three years of supervision with no ability to escape the condition.
Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 06-07-2012 at 06:08 PM.
a bit edgy, but i can live with criminals losing all their rights. works for me. except ofcourse the right they have to be a criminal.
added: new bumpersticker: Have You Frisked a Felon Today?
Last edited by McX; 06-08-2012 at 12:19 PM.
Restrictions lifted when her sentence is over -- on the surface I don't have a problem with this ruling.
I do have a problem with people losing their Rights permanently even after paying their dept to society.
I think that she should see if the SCOTUS will hear this case.
Wait a minute.... IF she is such a danger, then why only 14 months in the crowbar hotel?Rowan was convicted at trial of battery to a law enforcement officer and sentenced to 14 months incarceration plus three years of extended supervision. One of the conditions of the supervision was that she, her house and her car could be searched any time by any law enforcement officer.
IF she is not such a danger as to not hold for 3 years, then why the rights strippage?
IF the illegal system has no duty to protect, then why claim that it does?
Again (for the umpteenth time), if someone bones up like this gal did, then bring the full weight of the LAW to bear upon them. NOT the full weight of clever imaginative nonsense in the form and likeness of small children making up random rules..... "no walking on the carpet, it's fire and you'll burn up, you have to stay on the wood floor, cuz it's safe, um, and, um...."
So much for having been a republic.
I'm surprised nobody has yet stated the obvious...:
Hello? She's a felon.Rowan was ... sentenced to 14 months incarceration
She can't legally possess firearms except in very limited circumstances.
Since the law says she can't have them, of course she won't.
So the random & unconstitutional searches are worthless.
Worse than worthless - useless as far as preventing her from having guns (because the law says she can't, obviously she won't), & a severe intrusion on her protection against unwarranted search & seizure.
Last edited by MKEgal; 06-08-2012 at 10:40 PM.
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
That if a felon may properly disbarred his rights under color of law, then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony applies particularly to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, this Talley Ann Rowan case bears on our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects. This court extends a felons disabilities.
In my opinion, once a felon has served his/her sentence, all rights should be restored. However, offences repeated, throw the book at them. (if they can't behave, don't let them out!)
There are various classes of people prohibited from various activities and "rights". During the time of her supervision, she is restricted from possessing a firearm BECAUSE she obviously is a bit insane. At the end of that time, there is nothing in the sentence that restricts her from exercising that right (restoration of rights notwithstanding.)
There are many people who have no business having ready access to a gun. So this leaves us with an all-or-none, do as you will situation, or we can allow the courts to infrequently and for good cause, temporarily restrict rights for an individual.
Yes she is a felon, but she has also served her sentence, she loses many rights, but to strip all rights from this person is above and beyond what is reasonable.
If she is such a danger, why is she not still incarcerated? Accepting this schitt just because it is not happening to you, does not fly well with me! We need to stand up to the severe loss of liberty in this country.
If that is a case law case, then police cannot search for multiple things. However their ruling is still troubling for me.
: Justice Pat Crooks said the searches may “impinge on constitutional rights,” but they do not violate those rights.
I hope LEOS won't use that to search us whenever and as they feel. What says thou.
wouldn't if the fact, if she had a firearm at her residence than the search would also be a violation of her 5th A rights. seeing that if she submits to a search than she would be incriminating herself
Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
"guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.