Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. is pushing a package of legislation that seeks to give police more tools to keep bad guys off the streets.

“We have some people who are arrested and out on bail for 13 different offenses,” Riley told the Rotary Club of Charleston this week. He went on to highlight how a person out on bail later was accused of killing someone.

“For the safety of the community, you shouldn’t get out on bond” if you’ve got a history of violence, Riley said.

“We need more tools in the toolbox to be able to deal with crime and gangs,” said Reba Campbell of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. “His proposals take a proactive approach and we’ve been very supportive of that.”

Riley has been pushing legislation that will allow courts to deny bail to someone who is arrested for a violent offense while already out on bond for a different offense.

“The bill protects our communities by allowing the court to deny bail if no conditions can reasonably assure the safety of any person or the community if the offender is released,” according to a written explanation in the mayor’s legislative crime packet.

Currently, judges can deny bond if they think someone poses a threat to the community, but in reality courts often don’t, according to an explanation of S. 6, a bill currently in a Senate subcommittee.

While the idea merits consideration, the state needs to be cautious about “overfixing” a problem for the whole state that may only be a problem in Charleston, warned state Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

Another of Riley’s proposals passed the Senate earlier this year, but may face more difficulty in the House, Hutto said. The bill, S. 191, would allow police to conduct warrantless searches of people on probation and parole in an effort to stem criminal activity.

“It is well established that criminal defendants who return to the same environment as before are likely to repeat their criminal activity,” according to a position paper on the bill. “This bill is aimed at reducing recidivism by attaching as a condition of granting probation or parole that a criminal defendant consent to warrantless searches of his/her person or property by law enforcement officers, and probation and parole officers.

“If criminal defendants know that they can be searched day or night by law enforcement officers, they are less likely to engage in criminal activity.”

While such searches in California have been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, there are questions about the rights of non-parolees or non-probationers who might get caught up in a search. What if, for example, police conducted a warrantless search on someone’s home when a parolee was inside? Wouldn’t that invade the owner’s property in violation of the Constitution? Wouldn’t such a law also tend to create an environment for potential harassment, even though the proposed law says the statute couldn’t be used for harassment?

“It could be used abusively with some police officers,” Columbia attorney Tom Turnipseed admitted, adding that people on parole or probation didn’t have their full rights back when they were allowed to return to a community.

Other features of Riley’s crime-fighting package include stopping convicted criminals of possessing handguns or assault weapons; a new offense for possessing a gun while selling, making or possessing drugs for distribution; a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill; and a truth-in-sentencing measure that requires convicts to serve at least 85 percent of sentences.

State legislators need to take appropriate steps to ensure that communities are safe and that police need to have to tools they need. But lawmakers also need to ensure that safety concerns are properly balanced with privacy and constitutional issues. What may work for California may not necessarily work for South Carolina.

This commentary by Andy Brack, publisher of CharlestonCurrents.com, first appeared in S.C. Statehouse Report. Brack can be reached at: publisher@charlestoncurrents.com.