Bill
description:
SJR 104 would amend the Idaho State Constitution to allow for warrantless
arrests for offenses not committed in an officer's presence.
Rating: -3
Does it violate
the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which
discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply
laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such
characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal
protection under the law?
SJR 104 would amend Section 17,
Article I, of the Idaho State Constitution, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
by the addition of the following provision:
"No warrantless arrest based on
probable cause to believe the person committed an offense shall be deemed an
unreasonable seizure solely because the offense in question was not committed
in a peace officer's presence. Nothing in this section shall limit the
legislature's authority to statutorily limit the authority to arrest."
SJR 104 is similar to SJR 103, introduced
earlier this year, but the earlier version lacked the final sentence related to
the legislature's authority.
The use of "probable cause"
as a pretext for depriving people of their liberty creates a significant
imbalance in the application of the law because it is not based on concrete or
definitive evidence. By removing the requirement that an officer actually
observe the offense for which someone is arrested, guesswork and even personal
prejudice are introduced into the process.
Furthermore, an officer's use (or
even misuse) of probable cause has been upheld by the courts under the doctrine
of "qualified immunity." In District
of Columbia v. Wesby, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court
ruling that limited the application of both probable cause and qualified immunity.
In a decision handed down in January
of 2018, the high court ruled that probable cause "is 'a fluid concept'
that is 'not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal
rules.'" It also concluded that "[p]robable cause 'requires only a
probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing
of such activity.'" On qualified immunity for officers, the court
reiterated that it is a "demanding standard [that] protects 'all but the
plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'"
Taken together, this amendment to the
Idaho State Constitution would allow an officer to deprive people of their
freedom based on the mere "probability" of an offense and would not
hold the officer liable should that probability prove unfounded.
(-1)
Does it
directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or
non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate
or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for
non-violent crimes?
Passing the constitutional amendment
proposed in SJR 104 would increase the frequency with which individuals are
deprived of their liberty through arrest based on supposition rather than on
proof.
(-1)
Does it violate
the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho
Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the
press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or
uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho
Constitution?
While the constitutional amendment
proposed in SJR 104 would amend the state's constitution, the Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures that is found in the
federal constitution would remain unchanged.
The Fourth Amendment reads as
follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized."
An arrest is the seizure of one's
person, and to seize someone based on the mere probability that the person in
question may have committed an offense is an unreasonable practice, though
unfortunately one that has been tolerated by the courts in recent years. It
should be noted that throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was
commonly understood that an individual could not be arrested for a misdemeanor
without a warrant unless the offense was committed in an officer's presence. It
was the overwhelming and unanimous evidence in support of this fact that led to
the Idaho State Supreme Court ruling against such arrests in State v. Clarke last year.
The proposed amendment to Idaho's
constitution would effectively nullify the protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures by allowing warrantless arrests based on mere
probability, even when the offense in question was not committed in an
officer's presence.
(-1)