What would you have done ?


PDA






cyanide
August 22, 2006, 10:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

If you enjoyed reading about "What would you have done ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bigcim
August 22, 2006, 10:44 PM
let my dogs out

cyanide
August 22, 2006, 10:47 PM
She could have taken pictures from the road

cop was negligent in his duties allowing her to do what she did.

ceetee
August 22, 2006, 10:49 PM
I would have made several copies of the tape, locked up the original securely, and called the best attorney I could afford.

Pilgrim
August 22, 2006, 11:02 PM
In which role?

It appears the health inspector was not aware of her options and was expecting the presence of an armed deputy would solve her dilemma. The deputy wasn't familiar with the law the health inspector was attempting to enforce and therefore couldn't help her.

It looks to me the homeowner was doing just fine. If the deputy decided to throw his weight around, it would have been a good idea for the homeowner to go along while voicing his protest loudly.

I didn't see the entire eight + minutes. The tape quit after about three minutes.

I went down this road once with a fire battalion chief who demanded I arrest a home resident who didn't want a contractor to enter his property and disc under weeds in compliance with a fire prevention ordinance. The battalion chief couldn't provide the ordinance he wanted me to arrest under and was unwilling to make the arrest himself.

Pilgrim

cyanide
August 22, 2006, 11:14 PM
I have been down this road may a time

Mental heath workers wanted me to pink slip a eccentric , and I would not

not unless they were a threat of harm to themselves or others.

Being different isn't against the law or wrong in America, they all hated me. I would tell them to go to court and have them probated if they thought I was wrong.

Note: they never did.

Cops got to think for themselves and do what is right, not side with other agencies just because they are a government agency.

Least I did.

Wastemore
August 22, 2006, 11:31 PM
Continue protesting in a non-violent manor and get a good attorney.

Problem is, the courts tend to protect public officials.

cyanide
August 23, 2006, 12:24 AM
Continue protesting in a non-violent manor and get a good attorney.

Problem is, the courts tend to protect public officials.

Because the Judges have lost the way, not seeking justice, but trying to keep political ties strong and keep government working for the politicians not the people.

highdesert
August 23, 2006, 12:32 AM
Arrrggghhh that was frustrating to watch. Hopefully the guy prevails in court. Of course the taxpayers of Indiana will foot the bill. If bureaucrats were held personally liable for their actions they might worry more about staying on the right side of the law.

Edit to add: letting dogs out probably would result in OC'ed or shot dogs. No good options other than a video camera.

Jeff White
August 23, 2006, 12:33 AM
Move the thread to legal and political is what I'll do, this is off topic here.

Jeff

TheArchDuke
August 23, 2006, 01:54 AM
In the comment section of the video, the cameraman said that no lawyer would touch it and he's out of luck. No one will help him.


He also said that the reason she was there is because someone called in on him. The reason they called in on him? Because he outbid them on the land.


That's what warrants are for.

Frog48
August 23, 2006, 02:12 AM
Thats absolutely frustrating to watch. That woman obviously was either ignorant of the law, or terribly arrogant (or both).

And I hate it when people pull the line "If you have nothing to hide, you wont mind". Like the guy said on the video, thats not the point. Its a matter of principle.

It really sucks that people are treated as criminals because they wish to exercise their rights. The government hates that, because it requires them to actually do their job, instead of conceding and giving them the easy way out.

joab
August 23, 2006, 02:23 AM
The only picture she would have gotten would have been of my face or butt.

jashobeam
August 23, 2006, 02:34 AM
I can only get it to play for 2 minutes, 21 seconds; then it freezes.

Liberal Gun Nut
August 23, 2006, 02:53 AM
Wow.

First, the guy IS in fact a nut. However, even nuts have rights and the law protects nuts.

He would have been totally fine using reasonable force to remove her from the property. It was trespassing. He showed restraint.

I hope he does have a good lawyer because I think he could bust her for trespassing, etc.

In his situation I would have called the police and complained of trespassing I guess.

Wastemore
August 23, 2006, 03:09 AM
I'm not sure why he didn't request the deputy place her under citizens arrest for tresspassing.

Sindawe
August 23, 2006, 03:51 AM
Those studied in the Law feel free to interject and correct my errors. :D I'm not sure why he didn't request the deputy place her under citizens arrest for tresspassing.One word. Curtilage.

I've not the references on hand at the moment, but as I recall only the area immediately around one's home is considered "Sacrosanct" with respect to the 4th amendment protection against "unreasonable" searches. That is the curtilage around your home. Outside of that, government agents are free to roam at will across one's property. :scrutiny: Something to do with the right of free passage w/o ill intent and such.

Unfortunately, even that looks to have forgoten these days...

Even with that sad fact in mind, I'd 'prolly do my best to ensnarl that harridan of a civil servant in a gnarly mass of red tape and legal manoeuvring. Swear out a complaint of trespass. Deputy Doughboy as well if he refused to hear my complaint against the employee of my servant.

Beyond that, well....

Jeff White
August 23, 2006, 05:11 AM
Before everyone starts screaming that the fourth amendment is dead, I suggest someone figure out where this happened and check the laws and what powers health inspectors have.

In many cases the law that created the health department (or other regulatory agency for that matter) also empowered the agents of said agency to enter private property without a warrant (usually as long as it's at a reasonable hour) to conduct compliance inspections. In other words, you can't keep em out.

I'm not saying it's right, but it might be legal. And you'd certainly lose any action you started and get your fourth amendment violation argument laughed out of court.

Everyone from health department inspectors to animal control officers, to fire and housing authority inspectors has the power to enter without a warrant in most places.

Jeff

cyanide
August 23, 2006, 09:01 AM
As a former LEO

I have found laws are pretty much similar throughout the country

true there are some differences , but for the most part some things like the US Constitution on search and seizure can not be vetoed by a State Law.

What rights a person may have are already spelled out in the Constitution,
yes that pesky document that all JBT hate .

I may be wrong though the country is changing so much so fast, and not for the good ?

cyanide
August 23, 2006, 09:06 AM
Everyone from health department inspectors to animal control officers, to fire and housing authority inspectors has the power to enter without a warrant in most places.

Not so

they have the right to enter private property for public use like that ie: malls

But not private property ie: homes.

Jeff White
August 23, 2006, 01:12 PM
cyanide,
You're wrong. The administrative branches of our government have all kinds of powers that go beyond what the 4th amendment allows people in criminal justice. Here are some examples from Illinois:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1704&ChapAct=510%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=41&ChapterName=ANIMALS&ActName=Animal+Control+Act%2E
From the Animal Control Act: (510 ILCS 5/17) (from Ch. 8, par. 367)
Sec. 17. For the purpose of making inspections hereunder, the Administrator, or his or her authorized representative, or any law enforcement officer may enter upon private premises, provided that the entry shall not be made into any building that is a person's residence, to apprehend a straying dog or other animal, a dangerous or vicious dog or other animal, or an animal thought to be infected with rabies. If, after request therefor, the owner of the dog or other animal shall refuse to deliver the dog or other animal to the officer, the owner shall be in violation of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

Here the only restriction is the residence itself. There are all kinds of things that are regulated in these various codes, everything from septic tank systems to storage of flammables to annual inspections of subsidized housing. All of these codes permit those who are charged with enforcing them access to private property without a warrant. A no trespassing sign and the fourth amendment is not going to keep the health department or the EPA out of your backyard to check your septic system. It's not going to keep the the animal control people from checking barns, sheds and out buildings. It's not going to keep the city or county code enforcement officer from checking to see if the old car you intend on restoring is properly licensed while it sits next to your garage. If you live in subsidized housing, it's not going to keep the HUD people out when they do their annual inspections. Check your state and local administrative codes, you might be shocked by how little privacy you have.

I had no idea until I was called to assist the county animal control officer on a call where he was picking up some neglected and abused dogs. I told him I didn't think we could enter a shed to pick up some puppies (they were living in their own filth and had no food or water), he showed me the part of the law I posted above.

Jeff

Alex45ACP
August 23, 2006, 01:35 PM
I would have physically removed her from the property.

AJAX22
August 23, 2006, 02:43 PM
He would have been more successfull had he kept a level head.

That being said, nothing prevents him from physically barring her from accessing his property. not hitting or pushing, but just standing in such a way as to block her access.

cyanide
August 23, 2006, 02:53 PM
Here the only restriction is the residence itself.

I see what you mean about the land -------



If you in fact ask them to leave that is a whole new ball of wax though.

It is like if I come to your door and ask to use the phone because I am broke down near you

that is not against the law

but if you instruct me to leave and I don't that is a criminal violation.

Same for them.

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 02:59 PM
to apprehend a straying dog or other animal, a dangerous or vicious dog or other animal, or an animal thought to be infected with rabies.

No offense Mr White, but I think you were wrong.

No where in the snippet you cited does it grant any power to any government agent to come into private premises except in the cases specifically mentioned.

The dogs were not stray, dangerous or vicious, nor did anyone think they were rabid.

BTW, I do not have a major issue with animal control coming by to pick up a stray that might have wandered into my yard. It seems like a reasonable thing. Even poking around an outbuilding or two looking for a rabid animal seems reasonable.

ceetee
August 23, 2006, 03:56 PM
Even poking around an outbuilding or two looking for a rabid animal seems reasonable.

Indeed. But if there's no animal, no sounds or smells from an animal, and no indication that any alleged animal ever entered the barn, and I ask the animal control worker to please leave the barn, he or she had better do so...

Ginger
August 23, 2006, 03:59 PM
I've worked in the environmental side of public health for a number of years. Depending on the jurisdiction, public health officers really do have wide powers. Much wider than the average citizen realizes.

Whether or not the complaint call was motivated by spite, it looks as though the inspector is making sure that the leach field or septic system is okay. That looks like an area that might use well water for human consumption. A sewage problem would not necessarily be restricted to the guy's own property by any means. That stuff can and does travel. A contaminated well is a very big deal. Not only is it a public health problem but the families with contamination have to pay for bottled water for all their needs.

I don't know the law in that jurisdiction enough to comment on the legality but it would be within our powers to investigate that in my state.

Jeff White
August 23, 2006, 04:07 PM
ilbob,
Sorry I posted the wrong citatation. Here is the correct one for that circumstance:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1717&ChapAct=510%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=41&ChapterName=ANIMALS&ActName=Humane+Care+for+Animals+Act%2E
(510 ILCS 70/10) (from Ch. 8, par. 710)
Sec. 10. Investigation of complaints.
(a) Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of this Act, a Department investigator, any law enforcement official, or an approved humane investigator may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter during normal business hours upon any premises where the animal or animals described in the complaint are housed or kept, provided such entry shall not be made into any building which is a person's residence, except by search warrant or court order. Institutions operating under federal license to conduct laboratory experimentation utilizing animals for research or medical purposes are, however, exempt from the provisions of this Section. State's Attorneys and law enforcement officials shall provide such assistance as may be required in the conduct of such investigations. Any such investigation requiring legal procedures shall be immediately reported to the Department. No employee or representative of the Department shall enter a livestock management facility unless sanitized footwear is used, or unless the owner or operator of the facility waives this requirement. The employee or representative must also use any other reasonable disease prevention procedures or equipment provided by the owner or operator of the facility. The animal control administrator and animal control wardens appointed under the Animal Control Act shall be authorized to make investigations complying with this Section for alleged violations of Sections 3, 3.01, 3.02, and 3.03 pertaining to companion animals. The animals impounded shall remain under the jurisdiction of the animal control administrator and be held in an animal shelter licensed under the Animal Welfare Act.
(b) Any veterinarian acting in good faith is immune from any civil or criminal liability resulting from his or her actions under this Section. The good faith on the part of the veterinarian is presumed.
(Source: P.A. 92‑454, eff. 1‑1‑02.)

As you can see, only a residence is protected. My point is that there are all kinds of administrative laws that require a person to give everyone from the health department to the EPA access to your property so they can conduct compliance inspections. A no trespassing sign and a fence won't keep them out. Starting a confrontation over things like this is most likely only going to get you in trouble with the law. If you feel the inspector is being unfair you need to fight in the courts. This isn't the kind of battle you're going to win on the ground. Fight it in court. That's where these issues are settled.

Jeff

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 05:13 PM
Fighting it in court is a loser for the average citizen.

So you go to court. You cannot possibly win. If the government was wrong, they will just plain lie about it. The judge will accept their side without question every time, absent a video tape or some secret memo that is leaked admitting what actually happened.

On top of that you lose time from work and pay for legal bills. The government has an infinite amount of money to pay for legal bills taken from the taxpayer at the point of a gun, and the government employees involved are being paid to go to court.

Realistically, you have no options in these kind of cases except to submit to an unconstitutional search and seizure. And there is no redress.

Voters need to rebel at the ballot box.

cyanide
August 23, 2006, 06:16 PM
Voters need to rebel

Fight all enemies foreign or domestic

Father Knows Best
August 23, 2006, 06:25 PM
So you go to court. You cannot possibly win. If the government was wrong, they will just plain lie about it. The judge will accept their side without question every time, absent a video tape or some secret memo that is leaked admitting what actually happened.

Hmmm ... I wonder why I win so often in court then, especially when I'm up against government agencies?

hammer4nc
August 23, 2006, 08:30 PM
This situation is best described by the quote:
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

I found it telling that the inspector refused to identify herself...evidence that she knew what she was doing was wrong, if not illegal. Imagine reversing the roles, and a mere citizen identifying themselves with a first name and an initial, when commanded to by a government agent. How would that fly? Our more strident LE members would immediately establish PC/RS based on that fact alone. Curiously, the deputy seemed to overlook this attitude when demonstrated by a fellow government agent!

Ginger posted:

Whether or not the complaint call was motivated by spite, it looks as though the inspector is making sure that the leach field or septic system is okay. That looks like an area that might use well water for human consumption. A sewage problem would not necessarily be restricted to the guy's own property by any means. That stuff can and does travel. A contaminated well is a very big deal. Not only is it a public health problem but the families with contamination have to pay for bottled water for all their needs.

This typical scenario for bureaucrats follows what I call the 90/10 rule. About 10% of their activity is aimed at their core mission, in this case "making sure things are OK", i.e., from a water safety standpoint. The other 90% is aimed at expanding their power, budget, revenue and control over citizens. As such, they have grown to be parasites on society, in recent decades.

Read the body language of this inspector. She was obviously trying to build a prosecution against the landowner, rather than help him comply with any regs that might apply to repairing a septic system. Helpful is the last word I'd use to describe her attitude.

We had a situation recently on the farm of a friend/client of mine. The inspector trespassed past a locked gate onto the farm , after waiting down the road for the homeowners to leave in the morning. He then proceeded to wander the property and into outbuildings, taking pictures for "evidence". When confronted by immigrant farm employees, he flashed an ID and said "policia!"; and the terrified employees prompty scattered. Fortunately, one of the homeowners was also a senior deputy, and when the inspector later returned to serve the "citation" for stupid minor infractions (like mosquito violations, and non-farm use of a barn???), a uniformed deputy was waiting, and threatened to arrest the inspector for felony impersonation of a police officer. I was there, the inspector about had a stroke, when confronted with handcuffs!! Long story short, the dispute escalated to the senior parasites in county government, who have been harassing the homeowners for months to "teach these folks a lesson" (we also have a mole in one of the offices). :what:

The whole event was a great civics lesson in modern government excess.

Nitrogen
August 23, 2006, 08:38 PM
Whether or not the complaint call was motivated by spite, it looks as though the inspector is making sure that the leach field or septic system is okay. That looks like an area that might use well water for human consumption. A sewage problem would not necessarily be restricted to the guy's own property by any means. That stuff can and does travel. A contaminated well is a very big deal. Not only is it a public health problem but the families with contamination have to pay for bottled water for all their needs.

If it's that big of a deal, I figure the inspector can get a warrant pretty quickly.

Desk Jockey
August 23, 2006, 09:28 PM
IANAL, this is just my layman's opinion...

If the owner was constructing or repairing a septic system (as he appeared to be), then he probably needed a permit to do so. The permit would state that the health department has the right to enter the property for inspection purposes.

If he was doing so without a permit, then the health department should either notify him of the alleged violation and request an inspection, or document the appearance of a violation and obtain a warrant or take other legal action. I would bet that documentation of an apparent violation would need to be obtained without entering the guy's property if he has it posted. Like photos from the road or from the neighboring property.

I'm pretty sure that he's within his rights to refuse entry, and both the inspector and the deputy deserve failing marks for job performance.

However, there's an excellent chance that he was performing work without a required permit. That would explain why no attorney will take his case. He was probably in violation himself, and he can show no injury caused by the inspector's violation.

I'm pretty sure that you can't shoot someone for trespassing unless they pose a threat of great bodily harm to you or another person.

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 11:57 PM
I forget which state it is, maybe MA or NJ, it is technically illegal for a home owner to change a light bulb without first getting a permit.

Government meddling brought to you courtesy of your favorite electrical contractors and the electricians union. Amazing what some campaign contributions can get you.

Ed Ames
August 24, 2006, 12:46 AM
Inspector had an attitude because the homeowner had run her off the day before. The guy was a nutcase but nutcases have rights too... OTOH he was probably plumbing without a permit/out of code and I don't believe the "I outbid _____ so they reported me for spite" thing for a moment.

Personally, I would've tried to chat her up the first day... as in friendly and hopefully charming, trying my best to drag her over to see the clean-up work I was doing and to show off my front end loader... would've asked her if the state/county code on grey water recycling and composting toilets and who the best firms in the area are to do plumbing and septic system work... but then again I flat don't see the point in breaking the sort of laws she is there to enforce and if there was a violation I'd want to know about it more than she would.

Then again I've dealt with county employees before... they tend to be tin-pot despots who get their backs up and go ballistic with the slightest provocation... the only way of dealing with them is as friends or at the other end of a lawyer. He didn't have a lawyer with him, so he should've at least tried the friendly side. It works with most people.

When it come to the rights issues... you can see a lot from orbit (look up your house on one of the sat. photo sites... the county can do the same) or an airplane... and you have no right to stop anybody from doing either... and for that matter the courts have decided that police can use photographic techniques that allow them to gather information through your house walls (passive IR imaging) as long as they do it from the street... so if you really want privacy you've got to keep your doings inside control both access and emissions... that means walls, gates, locks, concrete -- real protections, not signs that people can walk past.

Those who said there should have been violence against the officer(s) (here and in the comments on the video) are idiots... nobody would've sided with the landowner and he'd be screwed (if he was inept) or potentially looking at life or death (if he actually killed them) and having no fun either way.

cassandrasdaddy
August 24, 2006, 02:03 AM
likes to defend a nutcase. they make poor witnesses.
his bbest shot woulda been to fall down convulsing during her raid. and have some other witnesses.some inspectors can be a trip. i had a health dept guy write me for not handling a food product properly. i asked him what the product was. he couldn't tell me. i asked him if you don't know what i is how can you tell if i'm handling it properly... he didn't get it but his boss did.if he was outside permitting they usually serve a stop work order. then you can get nailed if you don't comply.
near where i live we have mcmansions springup next to lil shacks. the rich folks like to clean up the hood. there was a lil black lady living in a tiny place that was deeded to her by the original property owners for the rest of her life(it then went to hoa) the slimeball next door hated her so when after a real bad rainy spell her drain field was not up to snuff he called the healrh dept. the threatened to condem her property and denied her a new permit for a new drainfield on a technicality.
at the time i worked for aan old redneck who was extremely non pc in a racial way. however we had worked on her house while she was nanny for the original large property owners. when ray heard we waited till saturady loaded up took backhoe dumptuck full of gravel some pipe and 6 pallets of sod to her house by saturday nite there was a new drainfield and a brand new sod lawn over it. when they showed up monday for followup inspection and to condemn her place everything worked fine. and not a thing they could do to prove what we had done. they aren't allowed to tear up the sod or destroy anything. the lil twit did run everysink in house as well as flush toilet a bunch of times with some kinda dye in it . loved busting her chops.she did fail our next plumbing job twice but it was worth it.got lil sis to write her boss a lawyer letter after second fail and we never got an inspection from her again

ilbob
August 24, 2006, 09:12 AM
A farmer not far from here got a violation a few years back. They claimed his outhouse was not up to code. Did not care about the 200 pigs that did their thing out in the open about 100 feet away.

Tin pot despots is often the right term.

hammer4nc
August 24, 2006, 10:52 AM
When I lived in backcountry Klickitat County, WA, they used to send newbie building inspectors out on roving missions looking for violations. The exchange went something like:

Inspector: "Excuse me sir, do you have a building permit for that workshop?"

Homeowner: "Why yes son, right over there (points to spent 12 gauge shotgun shell tacked to a fence post). Would you like to see another one?"

Inspector: "That'll be fine. If you have any questions contact the office."

The new structure might be noted for future tax purposes. The point is both sides had more respect for private property, and the inspectors knew when to back off. If Jim-Bob's shop collapsed under a heavy snow, that would be his own fault. It never did.

Given a few more years, and building inspectors will have their own dedicated tactical support squads. And a certain segment of society will see this as perfectly appropriate...after all, they're breaking the law (without a question about the absurdity of the law).

Jeff White
August 24, 2006, 11:12 AM
hammer4nc said;
Given a few more years, and building inspectors will have their own dedicated tactical support squads. And a certain segment of society will see this as perfectly appropriate...after all, they're breaking the law (without a question about the absurdity of the law).

Absurdity of the law? Do you think that laws setting standards for septic systems are absurd? :what: Do you like cholera? :uhoh: Let's just eliminate all the public health laws. After all what's a cholera epidemic compared to the unconstitutional invasion of privacy by having septic and sewer systems inspected?

Jeff

Byron Quick
August 24, 2006, 12:02 PM
Jeff,

I don't like cholera. About as much as I don't like politicians drafting law and policy that do end runs around due process and the Constitution.

The ends don't justify the means. Sure, citizen, you can build the house we allow you to build on the land we'll allow you to 'own' as long you pay us rent-er-I meant taxes. But you have to agree not to bring up that pesky Constitution if we give you the building permit. It's for the greatest good of the greatest number, of course.

Once government is allowed to begin playing games with what is constitutionally allowed...where will the government stop? The historical record indicates that a government will not stop once it heads down that road until it is made to stop by force.

Seems to be it would be better for all parties concerned not to let the government get too far down that road to begin with.

I'll stipulate that the bureaucrats and legislators who felt the necessity to avoid those pesky warrants and court orders were doing so for high and noble reasons having only the public welfare as their single goal.

I have no confidence whatsoever that the bureaucrats and legislators who follow these high minded souls will not misuse and abuse these bright new toys.

Those laws that let the inspector for this and that search the buildings on a piece of property without a warrant as long as it is not a residence? All you have to do to get away from that pesky warrant business there is to come up with a definition for residence where most homes don't qualify as residences. Simple solution for the right type of mind...that's not a residence-that's just where you live so I don't need a warrant to search it.

ilbob
August 24, 2006, 02:21 PM
Absurdity of the law? Do you think that laws setting standards for septic systems are absurd? Do you like cholera? Let's just eliminate all the public health laws. After all what's a cholera epidemic compared to the unconstitutional invasion of privacy by having septic and sewer systems inspected?

No reason the inspector can't go visit a judge on his way and convince the judge first.

The problem with your response is that the overwhelming majority of building code violations are not things that are a threat to anyone, much less an immediate threat like a rabid dog on someone's property is.

Jeff White
August 24, 2006, 02:36 PM
ilbob said;
No reason the inspector can't go visit a judge on his way and convince the judge first.

Oh yeah that would work...How many more judges are you willing to fund so that we have enough to issue warrants everytime the health department needs to do an inspection? We're turning criminals loose and throwing perfectly good cases into the trash can everyday because we don't have enough courtrooms, judges, prosecutors and public defenders to handle the case load and you want to add more to it....:rolleyes:

The problem with your response is that the overwhelming majority of building code violations are not things that are a threat to anyone, much less an immediate threat like a rabid dog on someone's property is.

The problem with that response is that this thread deals with a septic system which no one can deny is in fact a public health issue. I'll concede that the building code is chock full of requirements that have more to due with employing trade union members then they do with health or safety. However, no one can deny that septic systems are an immediate threat to public health, especially in a rural area where drinking water comes from wells.

There has to be some balance between the public's interest and the individual's interest. I wonder how many members who think the homeowner in the video is having his rights trampled on would feel the same way if he was their next door neighbor and he was possibly contaminating the well they drink from?

Jeff

EVIL5LITER
August 24, 2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Medulla Oblongata
Simple.

Record everything. File complaints against the Deputy and Health Inspector. If you haven't recieved a response in 30 days, or you don't like the response you get, you file against the Deputy and Health inspector, both departments, the Sheriff, mayor, city council, city, county, and state. You file Pro Se (meaning you represent yourself) and basically make a pain in the ass out of yourself until you are either bored, broke, or win.

Government employees (save the legislatures) are NOT immune from suit or prosecution for activities while on duty. Even Judges may be sued for "unnoficial activities," conspiracy, etc.

If the guy is nasty enough, and insistant enough, he may win something.

I would use that tractor out back to dig a moat around my property 10 feet deep, fill it with tapioca pudding, and retract the draw-bridge. Ok, maybe not tapioca pudding, but water. It worked pretty good for the old timers to keep their enemies at bay.

I would Make it as hard for them as possible, and draw as much media attention as I could.

In our day and time, that doesn't work. I had a friend of mine who's father was fighting tooth and nail against the city of Opelika, the Sherriff, the county, the state, etc. and had the same circumstances. He lived 150 miles away from Opelika. He called a woman that was a witness to the events in question (A hit and run that his son was falsely accused of) to ask her a few questions. The woman was a government employee and reported the incident to the DA, the DA called it harassment over phone lines, and they sent a deputy 150 miles to arrest him for a misdemeanor and drive him back in front of the judge. Then the judge sentenced him to 90 days in jail with bond being set at $100,000 dollars for a MISDEMEANOR. He spent 90 days in jail in a hellhole all because they wanted him to drop the case so bad.

The outcome? After he spent thousands and thousands of dollars and the state/city/county/police dept. kept covering up all of the mistakes they had made, he eventually gave up after six years of fighting it because he realized they would never, ever let it go to trial in front of a impartial judge/jury.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You cannot fight the government in a court that they control. When it comes to fighting the government, there is no such thing as justice in a court of law.

Zundfolge
August 24, 2006, 04:45 PM
Oh yeah that would work...How many more judges are you willing to fund so that we have enough to issue warrants everytime the health department needs to do an inspection? We're turning criminals loose and throwing perfectly good cases into the trash can everyday because we don't have enough courtrooms, judges, prosecutors and public defenders to handle the case load and you want to add more to it....:rolleyes:
Yeah, upholding the Constitution and the rights of the people is just too expensive and difficult ... lets just throw it all out the window.

I'd be willing to bet that in 90%+ of the cases, simply asking if they can come on the property would result in the property owner letting them come in. However once the property owner invokes his rights by refusing than they need to get a warrant and if they can't then they need to bugger off and find someone else to harass.

There is already in place a balance between the public's interests and the individual's interests, and that balance is Mr or Mrs bureaucrat has to get a judge to sign off on a warrant based on probable cause before they can trump the rights of an individual citizen. Its a pretty good system that works better then just giving the Health Department Gendarmes free reign to ignore the basic rights our nation was founded upon.

Abrogation of our liberties simply for the sake of expedience is no less evil than abrogation of liberties to forward the cause of tyranny.

hammer4nc
August 24, 2006, 08:53 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/Unlawfully-condemned-2-2-Acres-in-NW-Laporte-Indiana_W0QQitemZ230018247410QQihZ013QQcategoryZ1607QQcmdZViewItem

Up for auction is a beautiful 2 plus acre parcel of land with a small pond, 2 bedroom trailer ( which needs work) , shed and other out buildings with power water and septic. All located in occupied Springfield township Laporte County Indiana. Just look at the Laporte county commissioner's web site and you will see that right on the front page they claim their duties are to "REGULATE BEHAVIOR IN LAPORTE COUNTY" for real. and they sure do just that; or use taxpayer monies to terrorise, evict and condemn private property after tresspassing on it. ANYWAY, the property is about a 5 minute drive to the beautiful shore of lake Michigan near Beverly shores AND 10 minutes from New Buffalo, Michigan where cheap homes now run close to 200,000.00, but mine has been condemned by fascist Laporte county Health department terrorists and their traitorous seditious judge accomplices while denying a jury trial on the issues. The property will be quit claimed and sold as is to the purchaser who can then deal with these terrorists. who should all be arrested and prosecuted by a jury of their peers. The video of the process to drag me into court began presumed as lawful can be viewed here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

It is on you tube and has been updated..

Agree with the actions in the video? Some will and some wont! Most do not.Yes right here in AmeriKa, the land of the free????? This video is not newsworthy and these actions aren't worth mentioning in the local papers being that they are the accepted norm of behavior by unelected government officials; and it's not real good for tourism... just like the occupation in Lebanon isn't worth mentioning by the US mainstream spoonfed media either...but just have Mel Gibson say something stupid and BAM! Major headlines and possible criminal charges too! What the heck is going on?

If you want to deal with these criminals and bow down to their every whim in what they tell you to do, then this property is for you. I bought it so I would have a beautiful retirement property, but I wouldn't live there now if it was the last place on earth or until this woman and her protective associates are locked up in a prison for the crimes they comitted against me.

PAYMENT ACCEPTED: Gold or silver coin or bullion making up the $22,000.00 exchange rate on day of auction's end. I MAY CONSIDER barter for an automobile or motorcycle of equal value. I will not accept fiat currency FRN'S for this property. Feel free to contact me with questions, proposals and comments as well.

In Liberty, a concept of the past!

Ray Kirkus

Ed Ames
August 24, 2006, 09:26 PM
$22,000 in bullion/equivalent barter (but no "fiat currency") for a quit claim deed (which means there are probably liens/a mortgage and he's planning to walk away from his obligations...and that's disregarding the legal cloud the propery is under b/c of the condemnation) to two garbage-piled acres in Indiana? Sounds like a steal. :rolleyes:

Derby FALs
August 24, 2006, 09:48 PM
The problem with that response is that this thread deals with a septic system which no one can deny is in fact a public health issue. I'll concede that the building code is chock full of requirements that have more to due with employing trade union members then they do with health or safety. However, no one can deny that septic systems are an immediate threat to public health, especially in a rural area where drinking water comes from wells.

There has to be some balance between the public's interest and the individual's interest. I wonder how many members who think the homeowner in the video is having his rights trampled on would feel the same way if he was their next door neighbor and he was possibly contaminating the well they drink from?

Jeff

Have you ever repaired or built a septic system?

gezzer
August 24, 2006, 09:53 PM
No warrant, No stop order signed by a Judge = get off my property NOW! Call higher law enforcement agency and request help for criminal trespass.

cassandrasdaddy
August 24, 2006, 11:26 PM
is good advice . i got jammed up in manassas va by the city cops they straightened up and flew right when state police showed up. they freaked out that someone would call cops on them.as a fail safe i keep my own number on my cell phone as # 1 on speed dial. i can hit that and just hold phone and it gets recorded. and off site so it can't be "confiscated".

Sage of Seattle
August 24, 2006, 11:49 PM
From what I understand, the woman (inspector) dealt with him the previous day. Why did she not go to her Gov't Bible and photocopy all the holy words that are writ upon it (the regulations that give her the authority) and show it to the homeowner after she'd arrived with the sheriff's deputy? It would have taken less than five minutes, and would have covered any legal question. I thought I heard the deputy say that he didn't know if she had the legal authorization, but he just went along with it on her say-so. I could be mistaken on that however. Personally, if I were the copper, I would have done the same thing -- just behaved differently.

And the "if you've got nothing to hide" bullspit really grates my walnuts. I almost couldn't believe that the copper said that.

Jeff White
August 25, 2006, 12:48 AM
Derby FALs asked:
Have you ever repaired or built a septic system?

Yes I have. In fact I'm getting ready to replace the one I have now. I've seen plenty of old septic systems around here that were nothing more then perforated pipe to leach everything into the soil, not even using a tank of any type to collect and compost solids. Get enough homes close enough together with systems like that and you will contaminate the ground water. That can be pretty critical if your drinking water comes from shallow wells.

I'm sorry, but I'm standing by my statement that regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary when you get people living in close proximity. I can't help but get the impression that many of you would prefer to live in third world conditions. Personally, I've seen a bit of the third world and prefer things here.....

Jeff

Derby FALs
August 25, 2006, 12:55 AM
Sounds like you know your ******. :D

DRZinn
August 25, 2006, 01:12 AM
The guy was a bit unhinged, but he was absolutely right.

The health inspector has been steeped in the toxic brew that is government service, until she thinks that what she can do in government service has no limits.

The deputy is either stupid, scared, or a classic jack-booted thug. Common sense tells him that if a police officer cannot enter without a warrant or probable cause, surely that would apply to a health inspector as well. Either he doesn't get it, and thinks the inspector is correct, or he's afraid to do anything against another agent of the state, or he understands perfectly well what is going on and doesn't give a damn.

I lean toward cowardice, but his "If you don't have anything to hide" line smells a lot like JBT.

And if Jeff White is correct, and the state has illegitimately granted her the power to enter without a warrant, then travesty is the strongest word I can think of, and it's not nearly enough.

Wastemore
August 25, 2006, 01:27 AM
Jeff,

as far as I could tell, there were no houses in close proximity. They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well.

I don't think folks welcome third world conditions at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it's about being presumed a liar, he told her what he was doing- I thought he made himself pretty clear.
It's about a government official who decided that the flexing of muscle/show of authority is more important than a homeowners right to privacy. He challenged her authority and that was more important than the task at hand. She was not going to let any homeowner tell her that she had no power over him.

He crumpled her tin badge and she was insulted.
It's a matter of principle and wills, it really has nothing to do with his yard or the dirt he was moving.

I can't help but get the impression that many of you welcome the nanny state- a place where we're all liars and only government officials know the truth and the truth is whatever they say it is.

Wastemore
August 25, 2006, 01:33 AM
At the very least she could have told him what she was looking for-
"I just want to look around" would not please me either. While I have nothing to hide, I don't much care to have anyone, especially a government official, snooping through my yard. The fact that she was vague simply shows that her attitude is one of " I don't have to tell you anything- and, I'm still going to look around."

Mark Whiteman
August 25, 2006, 03:28 AM
Wastemore said: "...They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well."

Not entirely true. It depends on the soil, subsoil, and the grade. My inlaws' well was contaminated by a wannabe hog farmer 100yds and two junior-acre lots away. He'd decided it was fiscally sound to spread raw hogpen runoff on some bare ground around his place. The health dept. wasn't much help until Mom suggested aloud maybe the media would be able to help if she gave them a copy of her video showing the neighbor spraying raw hog hooey around to show their viewers. The guy was out of business in 30 days.

There are definitely different factors in play here.

Art Eatman
August 25, 2006, 03:03 PM
For those who think there should not be a lot of authority for those involved with health issues, do a bit of research about what happened to groundwater around the Hanford nuclear reactor near Hanford, Washington.

It''s been twenty years or more since I checked, but the last thing I read was that adioactive materials had been found in groundwater as far as forty miles from the site.

The deal was thusly: "These storage containers wont' leak." Oops. "Well, these leaking containers are on an impervious rock stratum, which won't leak into the acquifer." Oops. "Well, the material won't travel far." Oops.

For lousy septic systems, it's not just the E. Coli; nitrates can also be a problem. Nitrates in groundwater can cause subtle debilitation of those drinking the water.

For all that E. Coli won't survive in sandy soil for more than one hundred feet from a primitive outhouse, if the substrate is an impervious rock layer or is fractured limestone, the distance can be much greater. Just because the movement is slow doesn't mean that Bad Stuff won't eventualloy contaminate the neighbors' properties.

Art

Atticus
August 25, 2006, 03:48 PM
What would I do? Since your asking - I would have let her do her job and be done with it. I just don't have the time to waste on stupid crap. The guy was probably within his rights, but IMHO he's just another pseudo nut job looking for a battle. A reasonable person would expect some type of zoning or health inspector to show up if he's doing major construction, or earth moving with a bulldozer.

Zundfolge
August 25, 2006, 05:24 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm standing by my statement that regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary when you get people living in close proximity.
I'm not suggesting we do away with regulations on what goes back into ground water, I'm just suggesting that 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. This should be the same for everyone regardless of the crime alleged.

Catching murderers is important.
Catching child molesters is important.
Catching thieves is important.
Stopping polluters is important.

But none of it is so important that we should abandon our constitutional rights for it.

Hell, some believe that thousands of children are murdered every year by guns, so lets toss the Second Amendment and just ban the darn things ... lets toss the 4th amendment and just send the police out kicking down doors to get to those guns.


Once you abandon the basic rights we enjoy under the constitution for a "good reason", someone else will come along with another "good reason" to enslave us even more.

Jeff White
August 25, 2006, 06:59 PM
Zundfolge said;
I'm not suggesting we do away with regulations on what goes back into ground water, I'm just suggesting that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

Last time I checked a yard was not a person, house, paper or effects. It's a yard. I doubt you'd get any court to rule that the man had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard unless he erected some type of privacy fence that didn't allow someone to observe what was happening in the yard. Are you contending that the health inspector should take written statements from the neighbors that said the man was putting in a new septic system, then go down to the courthouse and swear a complaint before a judge to get a warrant allowing her to do her job? Remember now, everything is visible from the street. There is no fourth amendment issue. None. Your real property is not your residence.

I already posted two examples where the law gives the people investigating certain things access to real property. I suggest you look up the trespass statute in your state. It probably reads something like this one from Illinois:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+21&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60736&SeqStart=47900000&SeqEnd=49500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E
(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑263)
Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
(a) Whoever:
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building; or
(2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
(3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
(3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land; or
(4) enters upon one of the following areas in or on a motor vehicle (including an off‑road vehicle, motorcycle, moped, or any other powered two‑wheel vehicle), after receiving prior to that entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry is forbidden or remains upon or in the area after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart:
(A) any field that is used for growing crops or which is capable of being used for growing crops; or
(B) an enclosed area containing livestock; or
(C) or an orchard; or
(D) a barn or other agricultural building containing livestock;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.
For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation; nor shall this Section apply to a person who enters a public building under the reasonable belief that the building is still open to the public.
(b) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of Subsection (a) if he has been notified personally, either orally or in writing including a valid court order as defined by subsection (7) of Section 112A‑3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 granting remedy (2) of subsection (b) of Section 112A‑14 of that Code, or if a printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to such land or the forbidden part thereof.
(c) This Section does not apply to any person, whether a migrant worker or otherwise, living on the land with permission of the owner or of his agent having apparent authority to hire workers on such land and assign them living quarters or a place of accommodations for living thereon, nor to anyone living on such land at the request of, or by occupancy, leasing or other agreement or arrangement with the owner or his agent, nor to anyone invited by such migrant worker or other person so living on such land to visit him at the place he is so living upon the land.
(d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under this Section if he beautifies unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial properties located within any municipality. For the purpose of this subsection, "unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property" means any real estate (1) in which the taxes have not been paid for a period of at least 2 years; and (2) which has been left unoccupied and abandoned for a period of at least one year; and "beautifies" means to landscape, clean up litter, or to repair dilapidated conditions on or to board up windows and doors.
(e) No person shall be liable in any civil action for money damages to the owner of unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property which that person beautifies pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section.
(f) This Section does not prohibit a person from entering a building or upon the land of another for emergency purposes. For purposes of this subsection (f), "emergency" means a condition or circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by the person to be in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or in which property is or is reasonably believed to be in imminent danger of damage or destruction.
(g) Paragraph (3.5) of subsection (a) does not apply to a peace officer or other official of a unit of government who enters a building or land in the performance of his or her official duties.
(Source: P.A. 94‑263, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

If you want to change the law, why don't you keep the building inspectors or whoever out the next time you make some improvements to your property? They will most likely access your property anyway under the authority they were given when the law was passed. Now you will have standing to sue to have the portion of the law that gives them the right to enter your property to inspect your work on fourth amendment grounds. Let us know how that works out for you.....I don't think you'll prevail but you never know.

I don't doubt for minute that the deputy was unsure of the law. It's not the kind of thing most police officers regularly deal with. When I went with the ACO on that animal neglect case, I was going to stop him from entering the shed where the puppies were kept. Then he showed me the law that I posted earlier.

I'll never figure out the members who regularly post in Legal and Political. In this thread, the private property owners rights are paramount and trump any interest the state (which in reality is everyone else) has in making sure he doesn't contaminate the ground water and create unhealthy conditions for everyone; and in the Employee vs. Employer thread, private property rights mean absolutely nothing if your employer doesn't want to let you have firearms on his property. Can't have it both ways.

Jeff

cyanide
August 25, 2006, 07:17 PM
What would I do? Since your asking - I would have let her do her job and be done with it. I just don't have the time to waste on stupid crap. The guy was probably within his rights, but IMHO he's just another pseudo nut job looking for a battle. A reasonable person would expect some type of zoning or health inspector to show up if he's doing major construction, or earth moving with a bulldozer.

Her job is to serve the public

they forget that a lot now a days.

Kentak
August 25, 2006, 07:26 PM
This thread would be a lot more interesting and useful if there was some information about any follow up action that occurred

K

cyanide
August 25, 2006, 10:27 PM
Wastemore said: "...They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well."

Not entirely true. It depends on the soil, subsoil, and the grade. My inlaws' well was contaminated by a wannabe hog farmer 100yds and two junior-acre lots away. He'd decided it was fiscally sound to spread raw hogpen runoff on some bare ground around his place. The health dept. wasn't much help until Mom suggested aloud maybe the media would be able to help if she gave them a copy of her video showing the neighbor spraying raw hog hooey around to show their viewers. The guy was out of business in 30 days.

There are definitely different factors in play here.
__________________

This post was not made to show how to make a septic

it was posted to show the lack of rights a property owner has in this country.

Geeez, get a clue ?

gak
August 26, 2006, 12:50 AM
Is the only way to combat this a fence ? I agree he would've been arrested the second he touched her to make a citizen's arrest. Maybe now I understand why people put up 10 foot high fences and locked driveway gates as the only entrance. No key, no permission, no entry.

Of course when the neighbours lie and say you're a drug-dealer or a health violation, or the cops just lie and say someone tipped them, everyone will see you on Dallas S.W.A.T when they rip off your fences/windows/front door and pile concussion grenades/CS gas on you.

But like the S.W.A.T guy says after they cause $300,000 in damage and find no drugs: "It was a good raid.":rolleyes:

Jeff White
August 26, 2006, 06:29 AM
cyanide said;
This post was not made to show how to make a septic

it was posted to show the lack of rights a property owner has in this country.

Geeez, get a clue ?

There's something I don't think that you understand. Your rights to do whatever you wish on your property cannot violate my right to drink potable water from my well.

That's why we have a system of permits and inspections for things like septic systems. The idea that the health department should secure a warrant to inspect a septic system is one of the most asinine thoughts I've ever seen posted here. A badly designed and constructed septic system could contaminate a water supply and make people sick maybe even sick enough that an elderly person or an infant could die before they ever traced the source of the illness to the water. That's why these things are inspected and approved before they are used.

What recourse would you give the family who's infant you killed by contaminating their drinking water?

There have to be some rules in order for people to be able to live in proximity of each other. I doubt if any of the founding fathers would have started a revolution over your right to poison your neighbors drinking water by building an inadequate septic system.

You picked the wrong example to use to make your statement. You'd get all kinds of support if you had posted an example of fish and wildlife agents depriving a farmer of his fields because it was discovered a rare mouse nested there or a man who couldn't sell and subdivide his land because after a 3 inch rain water stood on part of it.

But a nutcase trying to keep his septic system from being inspected is just going to make your cause look as out of the mainstream as he is.

Jeff

hammer4nc
August 26, 2006, 11:45 AM
But a nutcase trying to keep his septic system from being inspected is just going to make your cause look as out of the mainstream as he is.

From the video, he stated he would allow access to the property if a warrant was produced. A fact you conveniently ignore?

So, the issue boils down to "exigent circumstances."

In this thread, examples of cholera epidemics, third world references, and hog feedlots were used to justify warrantless access by the health inspector. Clearly, these circumstances are vastly different from a single-wide trailer on 2.2 acres, where a septic system is being repaired. Heck, if groundwater contamination is such a perilous issue as presented, maybe all large pets should be required to wear diapers, so that their fecal matter is properly disposed of? That is what I meant by absurdity. A little common sense goes a long way.

But the arguments do show how far the proponents of government intrusion will go to promote their activities. Repeatedly, it is falsely presented as an all-or nothing choice, which is tranparently disingenuous.

Someone brought up the example of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland WA. Thank you. Was this environmental catastrophe created by the government, or the private sector? How many government officials have been prosecuted or punished for their actions there? For every citizen that is victimized by ovezealous government enforcers in minor cases like this, I can cite an example of criminal government negligence that goes unpunished, and all the armies of code enforcers stand around with their thumbs up their butts. Why?

As we say wrt gun control laws, it isn't about the gun, its about control. Likewise regarding environmental control regulations, it isn't about the environment, its about control.

Byron Quick
August 27, 2006, 06:26 AM
What recourse would you give the family who's infant you killed by contaminating their drinking water?

If I were running things, the person responsible for contaminating the drinking water which killed the infant, would be executed after being found guilty of premeditated murder. That, of course, would be cold comfort to the family of the infant, but might just give the next person who wished to cut corners on pollution control-pause.

Jeff, the problem I have with this entire business is when governments try to cut corners themselves with the way it does business. It looks like obtaining warrants in this situation might be necessary. It looks like that would be a hassle. Lets find a way to do away with the warrant requirement. I think that mindset is very dangerous over time.

I think a better way needs to be found. A way which protects the public from dangers such as defective septic systems but at the same time does so in such a way as to maintain the hard won limitations on government power.

We've already experienced such problems in many cities. Some citizen gets crosswise with city hall and the city doesn't send the cops after them. They send the inspectors in.

Kentak
August 27, 2006, 07:40 PM
The right to do whatever you want with or on your property is not unlimited, and rightly so. For example, change the grade of your lot such that the runoff water floods and undermines the foundation of my house and watch how fast you'll be paying a court-ordered remedy. Hopefully with punitive damages.

K

DRZinn
August 27, 2006, 08:11 PM
I see your point and agree, Kentak, but allow me a touch of pedantry: In the case you mentioned, it's not what I did to my property, but what I did to yours. I make this point only because one of our (quickly being forgotten) principles is that an action is criminal only if it causes harm to another individual.

Kentak
August 27, 2006, 09:26 PM
Doc--

Your quite right, and I didn't mean to imply it was the alteration to one's own property that was wrong in and of itself. It is the negative effect on someone else's property that was the infringement.

Here's a hypothetical. What do you all think about this? Suppose you live in a nice, attractive neighborhood with conservatively styled, tidy homes and yards. Would a homeowner have the right to paint his house bright green with pink polka dots? Obviously, such a thing would adversely affect the market value of all other homes in the immediate vicinity.

K

grislyatoms
August 27, 2006, 10:15 PM
I don't understand. Why are folks here calling him a "nut case"?

Seems to me he was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. He sounded upset on the video, but I would be pretty upset too if they did that to me.

Did I miss something?

DRZinn
August 27, 2006, 11:11 PM
I didn't mean to imply it was the alteration to one's own property that was wrong in and of itself.I was pretty sure you didn't, but I think it's a very important distinction to make.

Suppose you live in a nice, attractive neighborhood with conservatively styled, tidy homes and yards. Would a homeowner have the right to paint his house bright green with pink polka dots? Obviously, such a thing would adversely affect the market value of all other homes in the immediate vicinity.Short of painting hardcore porn on the house, I'd say it's noone's business. Of course, if there's a homeowner's association, compliance with the bylaws of which was a requirement for buying the home, then that's a different story entirely.

ServiceSoon
September 13, 2007, 06:25 PM
The idea that the health department should secure a warrant to inspect a septic system is one of the most asinine thoughts I've ever seen posted here.

Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom and tyranny.

Cosmoline
September 13, 2007, 06:33 PM
cop was negligent in his duties allowing her to do what she did.

More than that. If the cop assisted with an illegal search, the cop may be individually liable under 1983. But it sounds like the whole matter be be over and done with now. As a general matter, the videotape was a good idea, as was refusing to permit a search. But his next step after they ignored him should have been to CALL HIS LAWYER rather than continue to rant. Nobody pays attention to a ranter, but as soon as you have a lawyer driving out there the cop will get nervous and call his people, who will likely tell him he needs a warrant.

regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary

Sure. But whether she's snooping around for a body or an illegal UST she needs to do it legally. She may have been able to see enough from the road to get a warrant, but she still needs to get the warrant. Maybe she had one, or a court order, but if not that appears to have been a very illegal search. She wasn't going on to grab a rabid dog or check a meter. She was quite clearly going on to confirm evidence in connection with a potential court case or administrative action. That requires a warrant or court order of some type. As a lawyer I'd love to be able to enter a plaintiff's home to check things out when my clients get sued. But I'm not allowed to do that on my own authority, or even with a cop backing me up.

Cosmoline
September 13, 2007, 06:47 PM
A no trespassing sign and a fence won't keep them out.

The sign, no. But a very high fence and locked gate WILL. They don't like to break a sweat. Post the contact name and number for your lawyer on the front. Works wonderfully, and if you notice it's the method used by anyone with some coins to scratch together. Jeff is right that these paper pushers can be real tin pot nazis given half a chance. Best defense is a high fence, some good guard dogs and lots of lawyers.

Blackbeard
September 13, 2007, 09:01 PM
Not to play moderator or anything, but what does any of this have to do with firearms?

DavidForthoffer
March 13, 2009, 01:30 AM
The terms of service for this forum says posts should be about firearms or civili liberties. This topic was about civil liberties.

Contrary to what a lot of people here have posted, it seems to me that both the lady and deputy behaved legally.

The key issue is whether the areas she visited were protected by the Fourth Amendment --- in other words, whether the areas were curtilage for the home.

This issue is addressed in United States v. Dunn. The criterion is whether the area is associated with the intimate activities of home life, and should be evaluated using a combination of four factors. One is nearness of the area to the home. Here, it was very near. Another is whether a fence surrounds both the home and the area, and does not surround open fields. Here, no fence. Another is whether view of the area is blocked from unprotected areas. Here nothing is hidden. The fourth factor is whether the areas is used for the intimacies of home life. Here, no; digging holes in the ground is associated with construction, not home life. The areas she visited flunked three of four factors, so it is not even close to being protected.

Since this is not a Fourth Amendment issue, state law applies. Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows a health inspector to enter private property after due notice to investigate disease. From the video, it seems she may well have done so. So it appears she was entitled to enter the property.

The deputy, on the other hand, did not have any right to enter the propperty. I suspect he was there in case the videographer committed a crime, such as assault on the health inspector.

I believe the videographer was Ray Kirkus and that he was evicted for health code violations.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would you have done ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!