South Carolina Sentencing Reforms: A New Reality-Based Public Policy

Earlier this summer, South Carolina became the latest state to adopt sentencing reforms aimed at reducing penitentiary expenses. South Carolina's prison population rose abruptly from just over 9,000 inmates in 1983 to more than 24,000 by the end of 2009, with steep future increases projected. Over the same interval, the state prison budget rose from $63.7 million to almost $400 million. Despite this massive public investment, rates of violent crime and recidivism in the state have remained high.

According to The Pew Center on the States, spending on corrections throughout the U.S. increased more than fourfold over the past two decades. One percent of American adults are behind bars, and corrections budgets are the fastest growing expense item for state governments after Medicaid. The Pew Center, which advises many states about public safety performance, praised South Carolina's dedication to the issue. Richard Jerome, project manager of the organization's Public Safety Performance Project, said that "South Carolina policy makers put aside ideology, looked at the data and forged a comprehensive package of reforms that will get taxpayers a better return on their public safety dollars."

Strategies for Efficient Implementation of Sentences

One strategy that the new law employs is to provide eligibility for parole or probation to non-violent drug offenders, rather than requiring them to serve mandatory prison sentences. In addition, convicted drug offenders will now be required to pay fines, which will be dedicated to funding drug treatment and other rehabilitative programs. But the new law increases punishment for some violent crimes and focuses resources on the decision-making process for early release and ongoing supervision of parolees.

This legislation signed in June by Governor Mark Sanford was the result of a year of concerted efforts by the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission, which was made up of members of the state legislature and judiciary. The commission also took into account important insights from the defense bar, prosecutors, crime victims' organizations and law enforcement.

With similar recent developments in states such as Texas and Mississippi, some commentators perceive a trend away from the punitive sentencing enhancements put in place by many states in the 1990s. Incarceration is a drastic step for a society to take to uphold justice, and the public should rightly expect proportionality and effective results. Meanwhile, criminal defense lawyers must strive to see that suspects are not excessively charged and that the state is held to its steep burden of proof before denying a citizen of his or her liberty.

Conway Magistrate Judge Avoids DUI Charge

Driving under the influence in South Carolina is illegal no matter who you are, but everybody gets their day in court. A magistrate judge from Horry County was cited back in April by a Myrtle Beach patrolman after he performed a U-turn on a two-lane road. He was later released after posting $997 bond for the drunk driving charge and $133 for driving left of the center line.

At a late June court date, the judge forfeited his bond on the basic traffic offense, but the DUI charge was later dismissed by prosecutors in the 12th Circuit Solicitor's office, who did not comment to the media. The judge's attorney called the episode "an embarrassment," but said that the DUI case was weak and characterized the result as the "picture-perfect way justice should work." He was not aware if his client was offered a field sobriety test, but said, "the tests are only accurate 70 to 80 percent of the time anyway."

The case was transferred to a different circuit for purposes of neutrality, and he received a resolution in less than three months. Back in Horry County, the Chief Magistrate announced that the judge would soon resume his docket of traffic and jury court cases.

Prepare All Cases for Trial

It is almost always a good idea for accused drunk drivers to contest the charges they face. The stakes are high: under South Carolina law, a first DUI conviction can be punished by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of more than $2000. Add to that a six-month drivers license suspension, enrollment in drug and alcohol safety awareness classes, inflated insurance costs, and a permanent criminal record, and a smart and strategic defense becomes a wise choice.

In addition to the fallibility of field sobriety tests, there are many aspects of a DUI arrest that demand close legal scrutiny. An officer must be able to articulate sufficient reasons to have made a stop in the first place, and must carry out the investigation without invading the driver's constitutional rights. Empirical evidence of blood-alcohol content, such as Breathalyzers, is not foolproof, but challenging technical results is a complex matter.

An experienced criminal defense trial lawyer can help you understand the charges, explain your legal options and assess your chances for a positive result. Preparing all cases for trial, whether the case goes to trial or not, is the best strategy to achieve success in your case.

Warrantless Searches: Reckless Policing or Crime Prevention?

In a bill that is currently making its way through the South Carolina legislature, the privacy rights of parolees and probationers are being challenged. The proposed law, commonly known as the South Carolina Reduction of Recidivism Act of 2010, would allow officers to search persons recently released from prison on parole or probation without first obtaining a warrant. This power would also extend to searching the person’s vehicle and personal belongings, such as a purse or bag, and seizing anything illegal.

Reduce Relapse Rates

The South Carolina Reduction of Recidivism Act of 2010 was first introduced in the Senate in early 2009. The stated goals of the legislation are to prevent recently released criminals from committing repeat crimes during their period of parole or probation and to reduce recidivism, or relapse into crime, rates. These goals would be achieved through eliminating the step where officers have to ask judges for warrants before searching certain individuals engaged in suspect activities.

To further enforce the new procedure, the bill mandates that those who are up for parole or probation must consent to the warrantless searches in writing as a condition of their release. If they do not, they must serve their outstanding time behind bars. This legislation is currently headed towards a vote and resides again with the Senate after the House recently amended and returned it. Even though the ultimate goal of the bill seems beneficial to society, the means the legislation presents is not without controversy.

Assess Pros and Cons

Proponents of the bill say that it would deter repeat offenders for fear of being caught with illegal items. They also offer that it could help keep parolees and probationers in line if overworked parole or probation officers cannot frequently monitor their activities and whereabouts. In prison, criminals have little to no privacy rights. Those in favor of permitting warrantless searches and seizures agree that these privacy limits should be continued to discourage temptation for convicted criminals serving the remainder of their sentences in the greater community.

Critics of the proposed law cite the violation of privacy of people who already served their prison time. They shudder at the thought of officers performing unprovoked searches and argue this will generally harm the reputation of law enforcement personnel among area residents where these searches are performed. In addition, some civil rights advocates state there is no evidence that law would prevent recidivism and are concerned about the possibility of racial profiling by officers taking the liberty to stop people based on how they look. A final point of contention is the issue of home searches, but the Senate and House have not definitively agreed that these should be included under the law.

Prevent Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of citizens. It secures people from unreasonable government intrusion, for example from searches and seizures, by police. This right extends to people even during police stops in a vehicle or on the street, or in the event of an arrest or search of a home or business. This amendment does not apply if an officer has a valid search or arrest warrant or believes there is probable cause of participation in criminal activity.

The warrantless search and seizure bill seems to directly conflict with the rights of U.S. citizens that are guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. As a person free from imprisonment, a parolee or probationer may expect their right to privacy and that the safeguard of the warrant process will still apply. Could a law like this, where a court does not participate in determining probable cause, promote an officer to abuse his or her power to search a person and seize property? Opponents of the law argue sentencing reform to keep violent and repeat offenders in jail is a better way achieve the legislature's goals. Many issues related to this bill are yet to be determined.

Participate in the Debate

Other states also see the value in allowing searches and seizures with regard to parolees and probationers without a warrant. North Carolina passed similar legislation, and Tennessee’s Supreme Court upheld legislation permitting warrantless searches even if there is no suspicion of illegal activity. Regardless, these types of laws walk a fine line between violating the privacy rights of recently released criminals and attempting to foil the plans of would-be repeat offenders.

Because this bill encourages treating parolees and probationers differently than non-criminals, it is important to understand the purpose of parole and probation and the laws that restrict people upon their release from prison. We must all be conscious of the rights that we have, such as the right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and seek to preserve them. When the government passes legislation that curtails these rights, even for a fraction of the population, we may become subject to them one day.