?

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

Comments

( 74 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
wbahner
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....
nebris
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.

~M~
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
sabrarosa
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.
buzz
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)
(Anonymous)
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
nishar
Aug. 24th, 2006 06:56 pm (UTC)
He has a good lawsuit.
playgirl
Aug. 24th, 2006 09:32 pm (UTC)
I hope so!!
cris_nicewelts
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.

cosmicjohn
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
cosmicjohn
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.

*shrugs*
nebris
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.

~M~
luludi
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.
nebris
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]

~M~
(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
(Anonymous)
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.
playgirl
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

i_love_tazzus
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.
nebris
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

~M~
nebris
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.

http://nebris.livejournal.com/1517913.html

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

Food for thought, darling.

~M~
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
p0stmdrnpr1mt1v
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
playgirl
Aug. 24th, 2006 11:19 pm (UTC)
Frightening!
(no subject) - polomex - Aug. 25th, 2006 05:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
playgirl
Aug. 26th, 2006 12:36 am (UTC)
chilling
And it will be even more chilling if the woman ends up getting away with it!
tomcatshanger
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.
tempus
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.

kmilligan
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.
playgirl
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.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 74 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com