South Carolina Courts bow to Patriot Act provisions
In State v. Odom, at the trial level Judge Mark Hayes suppressed evidence which was obtained by use of a criminal discovery order which was authorized by the federal Patriot Act, on grounds that 1) the circuit court which issued the order is not a "court of competent jurisdiction" as defined by the Patriot Act, and 2) the order was prohibited under S.C. law. The state appealed the trial court's decision, and the S.C. Supreme Court overruled the trial court on March 31st.
This case seemed easy to me: ยง 2703(d) of the Patriot Act authorizes state courts to issue these orders where it is not otherwise prohibited under state law. State law (and the state and federal constitutions) prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Order in this case was not supported by probable cause, a fact which is admitted by the government and by the Supreme Court in its analysis. Therefore, the issuance of the Order was not only prohibited by state law, but was a constitutional violation and any evidence received pursuant to it should be suppressed at trial.
In this case, the evidence sought was to trace a screenname to an alleged online sexual predator, who was having conversations and making big plans with a cop who was pretending to be a 13 year old girl online (when the cop was off duty and on his personal computer, btw). No one wants perverts sexing up teenage girls on the internet, and most people would certainly support the prosecution of such predators - but - we don't need to sacrifice our protections under the Constitution to prosecute these people.
What the Court has done in this case is not only give S.C.'s stamp of approval to provisions of the Patriot Act which remove the requirement of probable cause before an individual's privacy can be violated, but the Court has taken it a step further and gone beyond what even the Patriot Act authorizes, by allowing such searches without probable cause and implicitly stating that this is the law in S.C. No probable cause required.
Comments
This is sick and sad of our SC government to allow. TO break the law themselves so that they can convict others who are breaking the law. I have also found that alot of times people whom the state - Specially Henry McMasters goes after with his task force, are not always guilty of what they are charged. Proof to back this up can provided very easy. He is going for a run to the top office in the state and this is alot of why SC now breaks these laws and HOW they get away with it - we have no clue... I don't understand how people can judge so harshly and yet promote these that break the laws to go after these men and women that at times are not really breaking the law. What can be done about this issue - I for one and many around me do not want this Att. General gaining Office cheating and breaking laws himself.
Posted by: Tamara | April 13, 2009 4:03 AM
the fact is that what a state government considers probable cause is entirely up to them I see no violations of civil liberties here. additionally regardless of whether the officer is on duty or off he can still submit any incriminating evidence before a court this is just speculation on my part but had this evidence been proven incorrect the accused could have easily exercised his right to rebuttal or even used the very act which the SC government invoked on section 223 and been reimbursed for his time. he is a law breaker however so therefore let what punishment awaits commence
Posted by: informed | April 20, 2009 6:51 AM