4th Amendment Violation... HERE

[GetA2J]

I agree there is just not enough info. He did on video however ask for a warrant. That was not answered by the officer nor the inspector.

 

[Benny]

BTW, I'm not all that familiar with all of our laws here...Could he have shot that B****?


With all due respect, thats crazy. On what grounds could he have possibly shot her? I agree she was trespassing, but she posed no threat to his well being or his property. Sure, he didn't like her being there, and she was committing a crime, but thats not grounds to shoot someone. Every time a thread like this comes up I wonder whatever happened to peoples' judgement. You cant just shoot people every time you get pissed. Your gun wont solve all your problems.

It was a hypothetical question...Would I ever shoot someone that wasn't threatening my life, regardless if they were trespassing (outside of my house at least)? HELL NO!!!

I was just stimulating conversation.

I agree, the guy obviously had to have something to hide, he was way too versed in his property laws and made the sheriff and gov't official look stupid because they had no idea.

Was it just me, or did that guy sound scarily similar to Mike Golic from Mike and Mike in the Morning?

 

[Annie Oakley]

Like I said, not enough info to go on here.

If a sherriff is involved, then the guy knew that the inspector was probably coming. I am basing this on the presence of the police. If the police have to be present, the guy obviously threatened or refused to allow the person on their premises. In that case, privacy was not diminished, as the man understood the consequences of his actions. Heck with so little information here, they could have had a warrant, this could have told him they had a warrant before arriving on the scene. Just not enough info.

I do agree with the restaurant thing. It was a bad analogy on my part (I apologize). A private business is subject to more public scrutiny and therefore, can be "raided" at any time.

What sounds like to me is that they informed him that they were coming, he said not without a warrant. They informed the local sherriff, then informed him again. He probably went on a "Im hardcore whatever" rant on the phone, then hung up, but they may have had a warrant, but the man's behavior was strange. He could have been made aware they were coming with a warrant but the camera would have changed how the viewing public saw the situation. Just not enough info though...

Telling him they have a warrant over the phone doesn't cut it. You have to be handed the paperwork. As far as the officer showing up...that in no way shows that he knew that they were coming. If the inspector and the deputy knew that there was a problem with gaining access they should have already had the warrant unless the inspector couldn't provide enough PC to get one.

As a citizen, no one searches my vehicles or my property without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but it is a violation of the 4th Amendment and if they don't have enough PC for a warrant then they have no business searching. Please keep in mind my background and my husband's profession. He feels the same way.

 

[ryanmercer]

The guy video tapes this? Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like he was maybe warned of a government inspection of his lands and wanted to make a martyr of himself on the i-net. I dont have enough details and the video description everyone posts this of doesnt either. I think the guy maybe threatened the personnell coming to their home before, thus the reason for the sherriffs (and the guy setting up his camera and being, in all purposes, belligerent)..

Listen to what he says... she was there the day before and he told her to get off of his property... her 'government credentials' only have her first name and last initial... I'd be telling her to get lost too without a warrant.

Also with the septic system bit... never once does he say septic system ont he video... he says he's moving dirt around on his own property.

And he doesn't have to have something to hide to want his privacy respected... a man in the uk was maced, handcuffed, and hog tied in his own residence because he fell off of his couch laughing and his neighbor called his cops ( FOXNews.com - Man Who Fell Off Couch Laughing at TV Show Ends Up Pepper Sprayed, Arrested - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News ) . We have our right that requires them to have a warrant, the uk doesn't... you want police pepper spraying you through your door, coming into your home, and arresting you then giving you a 6 month probation? I support him for exercising his rights... he told them to get lost as they were trespassing.

See you are using anti-gun logic... "only bad guys carry guns" "Realistically, the only explanation a REASONABLE and RATIONAL human being would have resisting an inspection by government personnell is if he WAS in violation of something."


It is my belief the only reason the police officer was there as the woman requested him to be, as she was there the day before and the guy ran her off. So she went and got a LEO thinking she had every right to be snooping around his property even after she was told to leave it. Both her and the LEO were in ignorance of the law and violating not only his Federally granted rights, but State granted rights as well.

 

[ryanmercer]

Telling him they have a warrant over the phone doesn't cut it. You have to be handed the paperwork. As far as the officer showing up...that in no way shows that he knew that they were coming. If the inspector and the deputy knew that there was a problem with gaining access they should have already had the warrant unless the inspector couldn't provide enough PC to get one.

As a citizen, no one searches my vehicles or my property without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but it is a violation of the 4th Amendment and if they don't have enough PC for a warrant then they have no business searching. Please keep in mind my background and my husband's profession. He feels the same way.

Exactly... if anyone ever wants to search my home or vehicle... they better get that piece of paper... and I have nothing to hide, but I do have rights, and unless they get exercised, they'll get forgotten, and then taken away.

 

[flagtag]

Like I said, not enough info to go on here.

If a sherriff is involved, then the guy knew that the inspector was probably coming. I am basing this on the presence of the police. If the police have to be present, the guy obviously threatened or refused to allow the person on their premises. In that case, privacy was not diminished, as the man understood the consequences of his actions. Heck with so little information here, they could have had a warrant, this could have told him they had a warrant before arriving on the scene. Just not enough info.

I do agree with the restaurant thing. It was a bad analogy on my part (I apologize). A private business is subject to more public scrutiny and therefore, can be "raided" at any time.

What sounds like to me is that they informed him that they were coming, he said not without a warrant. They informed the local sherriff, then informed him again. He probably went on a "Im hardcore whatever" rant on the phone, then hung up, but they may have had a warrant, but the man's behavior was strange. He could have been made aware they were coming with a warrant but the camera would have changed how the viewing public saw the situation. Just not enough info though...

Well, it did NOT show either of them giving the landowner any kind of "paper".

 

[ryanmercer]

Well, it did NOT show either of them giving the landowner any kind of "paper".

He also asked if they had a warrant many times and they never replied "yes, we already gave it to you" in fact... she even said she didn't need a warrant.

 

[Episcopus]

He also asked if they had a warrant many times and they never replied "yes, we already gave it to you" in fact... she even said she didn't need a warrant.

And, as I tried to explain in the other thread about this, she was probably right.

 

[flagtag]

And, as I tried to explain in the other thread about this, she was probably right.

I thought that only emergency services and or landlords were allowed in/on in EMERGENCY type situations - fire, flood. health issues, chasing a criminal without a warrant.

 

[flagtag]

Exactly... if anyone ever wants to search my home or vehicle... they better get that piece of paper... and I have nothing to hide, but I do have rights, and unless they get exercised, they'll get forgotten, and then taken away.

To add to that - I simply don't like NOSEY people, or those who think THEY have the right to push people around.

I have nothing but "junk" in my house/car - nothing to hide. BUT if I want to show it to someone, that is MY CHOICE. I will ignore someone who DEMANDS to see it (attitude is the key here). "Show me the paper". Make them EARN it.

 

[flagtag]

And, as I tried to explain in the other thread about this, she was probably right.

Did I miss it? Was there some sort of public health hazzard?
Something that could be seen from the road? Something that could be smelled from outside the property? What was the "emergency" justification? Why couldn't they wait for a warrant?

(I still think he should have demanded to "search" HER vehicle. )
Turn about is fair play!

 

[ryanmercer]

To add to that - I simply don't like NOSEY people, or those who think THEY have the right to push people around.

I have nothing but "junk" in my house/car - nothing to hide. BUT if I want to show it to someone, that is MY CHOICE. I will ignore someone who DEMANDS to see it (attitude is the key here). "Show me the paper". Make them EARN it.

Exactly!

 

[Episcopus]

Did I miss it? Was there some sort of public health hazzard?
Something that could be seen from the road? Something that could be smelled from outside the property? What was the "emergency" justification? Why couldn't they wait for a warrant?

(I still think he should have demanded to "search" HER vehicle. )
Turn about is fair play!

The backhoe in the video was being used to dig out the septic tank. This was visible from the road. A search, legally, only happens when the government is looking for something in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. So, the property owner had to believe that what she was looking for was private, and he clearly did. That belief, however, had to be reasonable, and it wasn't. Something which is easily viewable by the public can never be private. The big case stating this rule was about using electronic hearing amplification to listen to a guy talk on a phone in a phone booth. That wasn't allowed because he thought his conversation was private, and it was reasonable to think that because he was in a closed phone booth. If they had used a lip reader instead of amplification, things would have been fine because the movement of his lips was exposed to the public, even in the booth, because booths are see through. Here you could see him digging out his yard from the road. That means that any belief he had that what he was doing was private was not reasonable. If there is no privacy interest, there is no search, and if there is no search, there need not be a warrant.

They probably could have gone for one anyway. It seems like it would have been a better move and it would have placated the guy. They didn't have to though, she was in the right and he wasn't.

 

[flagtag]

The backhoe in the video was being used to dig out the septic tank. This was visible from the road. A search, legally, only happens when the government is looking for something in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. So, the property owner had to believe that what she was looking for was private, and he clearly did. That belief, however, had to be reasonable, and it wasn't. Something which is easily viewable by the public can never be private. The big case stating this rule was about using electronic hearing amplification to listen to a guy talk on a phone in a phone booth. That wasn't allowed because he thought his conversation was private, and it was reasonable to think that because he was in a closed phone booth. If they had used a lip reader instead of amplification, things would have been fine because the movement of his lips was exposed to the public, even in the booth, because booths are see through. Here you could see him digging out his yard from the road. That means that any belief he had that what he was doing was private was not reasonable. If there is no privacy interest, there is no search, and if there is no search, there need not be a warrant.

They probably could have gone for one anyway. It seems like it would have been a better move and it would have placated the guy. They didn't have to though, she was in the right and he wasn't.

True, but digging in one's yard isn't necessarily illegal! In many areas : "Call Julie". I can't see where digging in one's yard, even if it IS seen from the road could possibly be considered illegal and warrant a "search" by ANYONE. No matter what "tool" one used.
I hope SOMEONE can come up with a LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for her actions. Otherwise, I hope he takes her, the Sheriff's Dept. AND the State for everything he can get! (And she gets fired!)

 

[Episcopus]

True, but digging in one's yard isn't necessarily illegal! In many areas : "Call Julie". I can't see where digging in one's yard, even if it IS seen from the road could possibly be considered illegal and warrant a "search" by ANYONE. No matter what "tool" one used.
I hope SOMEONE can come up with a LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for her actions. Otherwise, I hope he takes her, the Sheriff's Dept. AND the State for everything he can get! (And she gets fired!)

Certain types of construction require pemrits and inspections. If he has neither, the health department and building department both have the right to inspect to determine whether a permit or certfiied inspection is required. Again, no privacy interest, no search.

 

[Annie Oakley]

According to IC 35-43-2-2 only police, fire and first responders have the right to enter private property after being advised of trespass if they are acting in offical capacity i.e "hot" pursuit or extigent circumstances. Anyone else must leave when advised of trespass and can only gain entry if it is refused with a search warrant. Inspectors from the helath department and building department are both held to these standards. This woman only had a deputy with her to try to intimidate the homeowner. She obviously wasn't part of the exempted group mentioned above and the cop knew it wasn't right because he was so hesitant to enter the property.

 

[Episcopus]

I checked this all out when I saw this video a year ago. I even sent it to a lawyer friend in LaPorte County. Turns out that the homeowner did file suit and lost. He lost because the health department does not need a search warrant to check out potential health hazards (like digging up your septic system with a backhoe) and because there wasn't a search, within the legal meaning of "search". The homeowner refused to get a permit, and he refused to allow inspections of his property. He was drainig sewage into a lake in LaPorte County. His property was condemned, if I am remembering everything right.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Interesting. Thanks for the follow up on it.

 

[Episcopus]

Interesting. Thanks for the follow up on it.

No problem. It alarmed me too, the first time I saw it, so I did everything I could to find out who was in the right and who wasn't. I was kind of surprised that the homeowner was wrong, but it made sense after I read everything I found.

Julie W definitely could have handled it much better, though.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Can't argue with that. She had a bad attitude.

Isn't it interesting how the law can be written to sound clear cut but there are so many shades of gray in different situations?