Please take notice that the complaint in this civil action draws into question the constitutionality of a state statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(2). Insofar as the dissemination of non-conviction data and non-disposition data, as well as findings of not guilty, nolle prosequi, dismissals, and similar dispositions, is S.C. Code of Regulations § 73-23(E) in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America? See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Is the State statute constitutional with regards to fair procedure and equality, under the Fourteenth Amendment? Doesn’t the right to fair procedure and/or the right to equality guarantee presumption of innocence? Does the State statute comport with presumption of innocence? The statute regulates in part the procedures for the dissemination of criminal records. Those records are available to anyone, from prospective employers and landlords to potential jurors for a fee of twenty-five ($25) dollars. Must a presumably, innocent citizen endure the hardships of a criminal record from the day of his arrest until his day in court (which can be the better part of a year after the arrest)? Is the statute constitutional, although the regulation gives rise in part to the potential situation, in which a juror can become partial and as a result of the dissemination procedures? Doesn’t the State statute prescribe cruel and unusual punishment, which the Eighth Amendment forbids? See U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment or, at least, the clause in question is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). Prior to a conviction, isn’t the imposition of a criminal record, which is available to non-law enforcement entities, degrading, oppressive, excessive, disproportionate to a bailable act, and/or unnecessary? See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Is the State statute constitutional with regards to fair procedure and/or equality, although it mandates that SLED disseminates, by way of criminal records, findings of not guilty and similar dispositions (so a solicitor can charge $150 per expungement of such a finding, albeit indirectly)? Doesn’t the State statute compromise the integrity of the State of South Carolina’s criminal justice system? I don’t think so.
P.S.. This matter does not forfeit any claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(d).
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by Pornosaurus:
|
| I'm Just Trying To Clear My Name |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|