The freedoms that we enjoy and are entitled to are not always easy to understand. For example, freedom of association is limited to groups without terrorist ties. This is a fairly obvious example, but all freedoms are limited in fairly nuanced ways as well. In many senses, the freedom that comes with the most nuanced limitations is freedom of speech.
We have written many times in the past about the importance of Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Without the protective requirement to establish probable cause, police could search any person for any reason and file criminal charges based on what they found.
When individuals are subject to the terms of parole or probation, failure to abide by those terms can land offenders in jail. In Wisconsin, one of the terms of parole and probation for individuals convicted of sex crimes mandates that they must submit to lie detector tests when these tests are requested.
Earlier this week, we began a discussion about a recent U.S. Supreme Court case and its implications for future accused persons. Specifically, the holding in the case affects the protection from double jeopardy for those who are forced to mount a criminal defense.
A recent United States Supreme Court case may impact the practical ability of the wider legal system to protect criminally accused individuals from double jeopardy.
Over the last few months, we have written several posts about the problems which arise from city ordinances restricting sex-offender residency. Many Wisconsin cities have passed ordinances to limit or restrict residency by sex offenders.