Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Do these two have the right to trespass on your property?
How would you feel if these two trespassed on your property?
Have we, as American citizens, lost this Constitutional right, also?
Does this video frighten you as much as it frightens me?
Please educate me on this one!

I will post this one again this evening, so you can comment on it,
because your thoughts are so important to me!!

Amendment IV
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.

Join The NRA
"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."

U.S. Army
Join the U.S. Army


( 74 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 24th, 2006 06:39 pm (UTC)
Without knowing the full story as to what brought them out to the property, I'm not going to say one way or the other....
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)
the full story
..is a non-issue. No Probably Cause, no Warrant, no legal entry. Period. Of course, the War on Drugs has been smashing into the 4th Amendment for decades.

Re: the full story - wbahner - Aug. 24th, 2006 09:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: the full story - nebris - Aug. 24th, 2006 09:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 24th, 2006 06:44 pm (UTC)
I was not aware that public health officials had any rights to go onto privateproperty to look for health violations. Sounds like someone one needs to educate them about what they can and cannot legally do in the course of an investigation.
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:27 pm (UTC)
They have limited rights possible violations are visible from a public area (i.e. the street, which it seems is where she saw the problem).
(no subject) - buzz - Aug. 24th, 2006 08:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
her skinny ass - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: her skinny ass - sabrarosa - Aug. 25th, 2006 08:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 25th, 2006 01:34 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much for this link.
(no subject) - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 02:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 24th, 2006 06:56 pm (UTC)
He has a good lawsuit.
Aug. 24th, 2006 09:32 pm (UTC)
I hope so!!
Aug. 24th, 2006 07:03 pm (UTC)
sorry, but if I am not doing anything illegal, then I have nothing to hide

it's simply an issue of courtesy

who would come out the bigger idiot? the person who called on a guy who wasn't doing anything wrong or the whiner who can't get off his throne.

Maybe my living within the city limits has something to do with it. I am leaning towrads another comment, in that I would need to know more.

Aug. 24th, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC)
I think there is a bigger picture you're missing here than just the fact that you have nothing to hide. This was recently a huge debate when the President was found to have authorized the NSA taps on American's phones. 99.99999% are not doing anything wrong. But I still think it's an outrage, knowing that the government had the authority to do such a thing. I have nothing to hide either, but it's a matter of rights that are guaranteed to us in the constitution and bill of rights. People have died for these rights and to protect them - it's a travesty that the government wants to override that in the name of a faceless enemy.
(no subject) - cris_nicewelts - Aug. 24th, 2006 07:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - silveroak - Aug. 24th, 2006 07:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - silveroak - Aug. 24th, 2006 07:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
RIGHT! - cris_nicewelts - Aug. 24th, 2006 07:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - playgirl - Aug. 24th, 2006 11:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cris_nicewelts - Aug. 24th, 2006 11:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tomcatshanger - Aug. 24th, 2006 11:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 24th, 2006 07:19 pm (UTC)
The thing that's interesting about this video is that the Health Inspector says that they have probable cause to enter the property. However, if there was such a strong case, why didn't she just get a warrant? I don't know if it's technically illegal to actually walk around the property and take pictures. A lot of laws have been passed to limit every ammendment and in Indiana, there may be a clause somewhere stating that they can enter the property. I highly doubt it, though. The guy has a serious lawsuit that he can bring against the state for this violation. I'm wondering, though, wha CAN a normal person do in this situation? Use force and remove her from your property? That would create more problems for the guy. Citizens arrest? I don't know if the cop would take her away as he's standing up for her.

Aug. 24th, 2006 08:40 pm (UTC)
He needed a friend to block her entrance while he filmed. But what average private citizen has the time and resources to operate like that? If he 'had money', his lawyer would have already been up their ass that very day, as something clearly went down the day before.

Aug. 24th, 2006 07:42 pm (UTC)
I don't know how the laws are structured over there. Perhaps a public health official is authorized to conduct a search without a court isued warrant if that inspector feels there is a reasonable suspicion that something may be occurring that would jeopardize the public health. I noticed that the police stood at the edge of the property and did not escort the woman while she conducted the search. Maybe he would need a warrant and she wouldn't?

I can't otherwise comment because don't know how the laws are worded and structured over there.
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:37 pm (UTC)
If that's how the local laws are structured, they are unconstitutional. Local laws in Virginia forbade marriage between blacks and whites until they were struck down in 1967. [yes, 1967, not 1867]

(no subject) - luludi - Aug. 24th, 2006 10:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tomcatshanger - Aug. 24th, 2006 11:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
The Constitution - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 24th, 2006 07:53 pm (UTC)
He should have made a citizen's arrest.

And, he does have a good case for a lawsuit.
Aug. 25th, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC)
trouble with the officer
I don't think so, because if he had, he would have
been in trouble with the officer. It's obvious he
was there to protect the bitch's rights and not
the owner of the property.

I hope to God he has a case to sue in a BIG way!

"The Constitution of the United States was created
by the people of the United States composing the
respective states, who alone had the right."
- James Madison

Aug. 24th, 2006 08:45 pm (UTC)
I hope the guy has a lawyer now. I also hope that the lady's camera and records are seized as evidence in his case. There should've been a warrant presented to the property owner, no question. It wouldn't have been difficult to get one, considering the nature of the search.
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:53 pm (UTC)
You can see the property is a mess from the road, so this was sloppiness on her part.

I suspect there is some classism going on here, as well. She looks like a lil collage educated gal and he's 'some hick in the sticks' living in mobile home.

Bet she'd be horrified if that was pointed out to her. lol

Aug. 24th, 2006 08:48 pm (UTC)
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.



Food for thought, darling.

Old School - nebris - Aug. 24th, 2006 11:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Old School - luludi - Aug. 25th, 2006 01:09 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Old School - nebris - Aug. 25th, 2006 01:32 am (UTC) - Expand
Thank you PoetPaladin - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 24th, 2006 10:06 pm (UTC)
I love that "if you dont have anything to hide" has now become the supreme law of the land
Aug. 24th, 2006 11:19 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - polomex - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 26th, 2006 12:36 am (UTC)
And it will be even more chilling if the woman ends up getting away with it!
Aug. 24th, 2006 11:25 pm (UTC)
I don't believe they would like me.
The LEO being there would not stop me from physically denying access.
If Mr LEO decided to arrest me, the constitutional issue would simply grow.

It's amazing that Ms .Gov and Mr LEO deny understanding tresspass. Something tells me they would understand if it was either or their property.

Fucking commies.
Aug. 24th, 2006 11:39 pm (UTC)
not to pee in the pool, but
I'm not a huge fan of authority myself. However the people that are saying this video is symptomatic of a "fascist government" that is disregarding the constitution are just plain wrong.

An action is not considered a "search" because a trespass is committed (Though that was the definition of search before Katz v. United States). Now, an action is considered a "search" when it violates the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of an individual. (Katz v. United States). If an action is not a search, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. If the Fourth Amendment is not implicated, no warrant is necessary.

Though I personally dislike it, the Supreme Court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields. In Oliver v. United States, police drove to a farm, passed a locked gate with a no trespassing sign. They walked past a barn and a parked camper where they stumbled upon a field a marijuana. The Supreme Court held that no search occurred and no warrant was necessary.

Now, if she wanted to come into his house, he would have been absolutely right that she needed a warrant. However, in a special needs/administrative action (such as the inspection of a residence or a buisiness) probable cause to issue a warrant will exist if reasonable legislative or adminstrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling (IE all wood buildings over 20 years old must have wiring inspected because of fire dangers or some such other legislative standard). Camara v. Municipal Court. In this instance, the scope of the warrant is only what is sufficient to meet the purpose.

So, in a nutshell, She probably didnt need a warrant. Even if she did, she would have been able to get one. Certain public officials are permitted to trespass, and, ultimately the officer does have discretion as to how to do their job. I don't really see any fascism here. If the cop beat him or tasered him or something then yeah I'd be all aboard the fascism bandwagon, but this clip isnt really the smoking gun that I thought it was going to be based on the other comments.

What we should be worried about is the increased militarization of the police. When SWAT teams are being used to serve non-high risk warrants, police are indiscriminately using tasers on anyone that mouths off or looks at them funny, and the abject failure of the "war on drugs." Not some woman taking pictures of a pile of dirt while a guy with a high pitched voice films her and Deputy Cooper just stands there and scratches his crotch.

Aug. 25th, 2006 12:35 am (UTC)
From a legal standpoint, depending on whether or not he had a home on the property, the inspector would be covered under the "open fields" doctrine. The relevant case is Oliver v. United States. Indiana law could possible provide greater protection from search here, but I'm not familiar with it.

He may still be able to sue the inspector for criminal tresspass, depending on Indiana law, but the pictures she took would be admissible in courts if any fines were to be imposed for his activity, since the search was not illegal. In most states, you wouldn't even have a criminal tresspass case, since law enforcement, in the execution of their duties are typically considered priveledged to enter property.

Basically the courts have ruled that in the case of "open fields", even fields, woods, farmland, etc ringed with fences and no tresspassing signs, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus warrantless search is not considered unreasonable. This is a seperate issue from tresspass, however.

Of course, if he had his dwelling on this property, "open fields" doesn't apply, and she would have to get a warrant to conduct a search. It looked as if it were an empty lot, however. Whether the courts are misguided in this view is certainly open for debate, but under the current law, I'm afraid it was the property owner who was mistaken.
Aug. 25th, 2006 05:20 pm (UTC)
I believe he did have his dwelling on the property.

I cannot imagine this woman had the right to do what she did without a court order.
Aug. 25th, 2006 01:12 am (UTC)
Ok Ill probably get mega flammed for this but here goes.
To correct a mis-statement We in the United States DO NOT live in a Democracy, Please go study the History of the US. We live in a REPUBLIC with a democratic form of government. Please check your funk and waggonals to see what the difference is.

Next The man has a valid complaint. The woman did tresspass twice. If she was following up a complaint then she should have approached the land owner and say she was folowing up on a complaint and ask to look over the property. It is HIS property and he has the right to say yes or no and if he did say no she has to obtain a warrant. THAT IS THE LAW in every state in the Union. The only time she does not have to get a warrant is if the Deputy felt that a criminal action was taking place, or someones life was in imminent danger. PROBABLE CAUSE

That woman probably lost her job or was at least taken off surveys. The deputy probably had a refresher class as well but his reason for being there was most likely to ensure the inspector was not acosted. That second Sheriff's cruiser was probably a supervisor. I perform federal surveys for the State Department of Health, and there are times when I can go into a facility and times when I cannot. If a property owner decides he does not want me on his property he can tell me to leave and I must do it or I can be arrested for tresspassing, even though it is a buisness. Keep in mind that I have the right to inspect his facility if he wants to continue to operate his buisness. As this is private property, and not a buisness, she must identify herself completely and give the reason she is there. I have to do the same thing.

The only way she can enter without his perrmission is if there is a local or state ordnance that says she can if she feels there is a concern, but keep in mind she has to identify herself and state WHY she is there. That does not change. It is no different if it was a social worker that came in to check on the status of children, a Fire Marshal that wants to do a fire prevention inspection during work hours or a Health Official who thought he might be handling Hazardous Materials without a license.

If this went to court for any reason and the judge was worth his weight in piss ants, he would not have allowed any of the pictures she took on the property to be entered into evidence because it would constitute illegle search and seisure. Only pictures that were taken from a public way (the road) could be entered into evidence unless they were taken AFTER a warrant was served.

PRIVATE PROPERTY is private property and there are laws to protect the property owner. Its called the Constitution. He did everything properly. What he needs to watch out for now though is if his county council is fill opf liberal assholes who think the land is theirs to do with as they please. They could decide to declair Imminent Domain and take his property and sell it to a developer so they can put in a strip mall so the county will get more tax revenue from the new owners. THAT has been done already and was supported by the Dumb asses on the Supreme Court.

Sory for bouncing around, but this kind of mess pisses me off big time.
Aug. 25th, 2006 02:40 am (UTC)
Re: Ok Ill probably get mega flammed for this but here goes.
Yes it was his property. Didn't he mention something about having a No Trespassing sign?

The pompous behavior of that terrible woman seemed most unacceptable to me. It's hard for me to believe this actually took place here in the U.S.A.

I couldn't have express my feelings about this issue better than you have. Thank you!
Re: Ok Ill probably get mega flammed for this but here goes. - (Anonymous) - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 25th, 2006 02:39 am (UTC)
I did a little Google search and came up with the following links:


The first one is where he has his property up for sell on eBay and it gives an update to what the result of the trespass/health inspection was. The last two links show his postings about his case on two militia movement sites.
Aug. 25th, 2006 02:44 am (UTC)
Opps, hit post too soon. The militia site postings make me wonder if part of his problems with the health department might be due to his militia leanings, although from the two posts I could find it I can not tell how extreme or confrontational he might be about his militia leanings.

Even if he is a wacko militia extremist, and I am not saying all militia members are, he still retains his constitutional rights and it appears from the video that they were violated for the sake of convenience. She should have went and got a warrant to enter his property.
(no subject) - shadowy_poet - Aug. 25th, 2006 03:28 am (UTC) - Expand
Fourth and First Amendments - playgirl - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 25th, 2006 03:35 am (UTC)
since i have no sound drivers right now, what did i miss?

as far as i'm concerned, no gubmint agency is allowed on yer propery without a warrent, and i lump cps in that group as well!!!!!!
Aug. 25th, 2006 03:50 am (UTC)
I don't have a problem with those people being in his yard. It's the fact that they have no written reason to be there and just world of mouth. That is truly sickening. Government officials and cops bending the laws for themselves. I do know for a fact that it's up to the cop to make judgement calls on things like this. She wasn't being violent....I honestly think the guy recording it is being WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to over paranoid...but he is clearly right about them not have a right to enter his property without written permission. And she was taking pictures...I know for examples in places like malls you are not allowed to take pictures..it should be no differrent for someone's property if they give you no permission.
Aug. 25th, 2006 12:34 pm (UTC)
Two Things
First, the first poster said this wasn't a democracy, he was right, it isn't. It is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Big difference. Democracy is strictly defined as mob (or majority) rules, while a constitutional republic is defined as rule of law.

Second, this gentleman was correct in his assumption that the IV Amendment applies to him (and everyone else) against unwarrented searches, which is what this woman was performing. I hope he sued her agencies ass but good.
Aug. 25th, 2006 02:49 pm (UTC)
Re: Two Things
Should this egocentric bitch be found to have every right to trespass on his property, then we the American people are DOOMED to tyranny!
Re: Two Things - darkknightradic - Aug. 28th, 2006 12:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 25th, 2006 01:08 pm (UTC)
I meant to write this last night but got severely sidetracked.

Let me start by saying my father was (and still is in a limited capacity) a public official like the woman in the video, only as a fire sub code enforcement. My father has pulled enough bodies out of burnt out buildings to know too well what happens when the fire code is not followed. And I will also add that I was a witness to an incident similar to what's in this video, save he and I were standing on a public street.

Regardless of how this woman found out this man was doing the work on his yard, she has a right to enter his property to inspect it, especially if the municipality requires a permit for the work in question. The law may be different there, but here in NJ you're required to conspicuously display the permit on your property so inspecting officials can see you're allowed to be doing what you're doing. And that usually means entering your property to check.

It should not be considered unreasonable to do so.

While obviously I don't know the woman in the video, my guess is she wants to know what he's doing in order to ensure it meets the code of the municipality she works for. I can't see how that's unreasonable. She feels there may be a health violation. I know in most places that carries a hefty fine. He says he's moving dirt around... well how does he know what's under that ground? Does he know there's no power, gas, water, or sewage lines? Is he sure there may not be an old septic or oil tank there which he could accidentally break open and cause a spill?

Lastly, what he's doing is visible from the street. If he hasn't informed anyone he's doing work that is probable cause to enter and inspect. Even if he is just moving dirt. Remember she can't arrest him. She has no police power. But she can cite him if he's doing something that violates a town ordinance.

I think if he would just let the woman look at what he's doing, if he is just moving dirt, they'd be out of his hair and he wouldn't have any more headaches. I know people will want to flame me for that thinking, but I'm willing to take that risk. I know a lot of public inspectors and know most of them would.
Aug. 25th, 2006 02:45 pm (UTC)
grabbed her by her lily white panties
With all due respect, this is how I see this situation:

How much more professional it would have been on the woman's part, had she gotten a simple court order. She's lucky the guy didn't turn out to be a nut case, where he would have ended up blasting her ass to kingdom come.

She entered his property as though she was a member of the Gestapo, and treated this person like a 2nd class citizen, and she had no right to.

When this type of behavior becomes the norm in America, then that will be the day when this country becomes a country of oppression.

The man was video taping the whole thing. Had he not, who knows, this pompous authoritarian bitch might have even entered his trailer!!

There are RICH folk who I’m sure, have stuff they shouldn’t in their yard. Would this woman have shown the same disrespect the owner of the property as this man, who is obviously a POOR man? I really DON’T think so! And furthermore, I’m POSSITIVE the officer would have grabbed her by her lily white panties and thrown her off the property, and maybe even gone so far to arrest her!

What I saw in this film, is disgusting, and FRIGHTENTING!
(no subject) - daddy - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
He deleted me from his FL - playgirl - Aug. 26th, 2006 12:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: He deleted me from his FL - daddy - Aug. 26th, 2006 12:50 am (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 25th, 2006 05:56 pm (UTC)
the guy should of made a complaint against the bitch the first day! she was trespassing and the cop he did not do his job his job was to keep the peace and he should of stopped her from going on the mans land he was right there and all he had to say was get it on paper first. she was from the health department and most of them don't know any law in the first place.
a law is only good if it is enforced
I am sorry if this post got to me but I just went threw this two weeks a go when the guy knocked my fence down
Aug. 26th, 2006 12:34 am (UTC)
I would have blocked her every step with my body, and prayed to God that she would have shoved me aside. Not only would I have her hide for trespassing, but for assault, also!
(no subject) - moon_shine3 - Aug. 27th, 2006 07:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
( 74 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com