Officer Alllows Illegal Trespass!

[69_Hemi_Charger]

Ok guys, I want to see what your opinion is on this video....

http://www.break.com/index/sheriff-allows-illegal-trespass2b.html

I have a fairly strong opinion on this, and I'm sure I'll interject sometime.


But for now, what do you guys think?

[moparguy01]

I dont think she had the right to go onto his lawn without permission. He obviously does not want her on his property, as he has no trespassing signs. wether he was illegal or not I dont think was the point, all they had to do was go get a court order and none of this would have happened. Frankly I hope he sues the hell out of them both just to prove to the lady that she isn't above the law, and to the cop that he needs to do his job or have the same concenquences. Now i have no problem with law enforcement officers, I really dont. I just have a problem with ones that either don't do their job or they abuse their powers (like the one former cop in Bismarck, ND who would always turned his lights and sirens on to go through a red light, then turned them off on the other side (i beleive he got fired after being caught doing that numerous times)

I know guys like that are the exception and not the rule.

also, If Indiana's laws show that she has the right to go onto the property, then I'm mistaken, cause I really dont know the law, but if what he said on the video is true, she needs to get sued.

[RD]

that just pisses me off.  I hate people who think because of their position they can do whatever in the hell they want... I hope she was canned and that sheriff is a fricken dumbass.

[last426]

I deal with wackos like that all the time in my job.  Of course the woman has a right to be there, that is first year law school "administrative search" stuff (ask the esq. guy who posts here).  The sheriff should have arrested the nutbag for interfering with a public officer.  Years ago, my best friend in Reno became a health inspector.  His first job was going out to skummy Sun Valley, a huge trailer park right by Reno, after a dog bite to quarantine the pit bulls. He would get the same kind of slack jawed "Constitutional" arguments, would call the sheriff, and would take the dog.  Over and over and over again.  C'mon, they are doing an admin search, not a criminal search.  No 4th amendment issue there.  Kim 

[hemihead]

Welcome to life in the US today where your neighbors cry to the local government then the government walks in, abusing the power the people gave them, to do as they please.Wake up people this seems to be happening more and more everyday.You buy property,pay your taxes every year on that property only to have a neighbor cry about something you do with YOUR property and then the government steps in to tell you what to do with YOUR property. It is just a shame people don't mind there own business and work on making the own lives better.

[Big Lebowski]

Yep, here in Peoples Republic of Calif., you have to wait to protect yourself untill the bad guy's actually in your house with a knife at your throat. Even the neighbors cat killing Great Danes have more rights than I do.

[ck1]

Is this what you put no tresspassing signs up for? these type of people? cops and building inspectors? or just everybody in general? just sound kinda of paranoid, maybe its just me...............I just think we need to welcome people and be more friendly.......anybody see a sign like that lately? welcome to our home with your guns ready and loaded for cops and building inspectors LOL

[Rack]

I hope both those "Government officials" lost their jobs. The government pushing their weight around like that is the reason we fought for our independence in the first place.

Pathetic.

[K9COP]

Couldn't get it to load, but as a cop of 16 years, I bloody hate people who abuse their position.

I always treat people with dignity and respect, I'm not perfect, but I beleive you reap what you sow.

Come on cops, you've already got a great job, stop screwing it up!!

[Mean 318]

That seems like B.S. to me! Cops have to get warrents but health officials dont? that seems a little stupid to me. If that lady didnt have a cop with her I would not allow her to enter my property. Around here you would get shot for trying to do that.

[cheap]

That was a great video of events,,,,I hope he sues the h$$l  out of both of them.....and their agencies....The only problem he might have is they wont let him show that video in court in front of a jury.....it is too incriminating....Like they say,,Big Brother is always watching......

[Arthu®]

My take is, is that the health inspector probably had every right to be there, thought I don't know the indiana law.

Arthur

[1BAD68]

that dude is a fruit!
even if he sues, he will get nothing because there were no damages.
I think some people are just looking for conflict.

[Old Moparz]

I'm not siding with either, but my guess is that the property owner appeared to be installing an underground septic or drainage system & he was being checked up on. In order to do that legally where I am in Orange County, New York, you need a building permit, & the county health department's approval. He probably took a chance trying to do it without the permit & got caught. It's obvious to me that whatever he was doing, it's visible from the road. If someone from the health department saw it, or anyone else, he was reported.

There's guidelines to install a septic system that require minimum distances, depths, ground conditions & more. It needs to be a certain distance from a fresh water source, like well water for drinking, or a neighbor's property line & their well. If the ground condtions suck, or the piping is installed wrong, then the septic system will fail & contaminate fresh water with bacteria. Also where I am, you need an engineered design & the whole system itself can end up costing over $10,000 or more.

The health department codes, as well as building codes, are there for a reason. You can argue about whether you should be able to do whatever you want with your own property all day long, but I've seen some really dumbass crap that has either gotten someone hurt, or ending up costing some poor bastard a ton of money.

[RD]

I'm not siding with either, but my guess is that the property owner appeared to be installing an underground septic or drainage system & he was being checked up on. In order to do that legally where I am in Orange County, New York, you need a building permit, & the county health department's approval. He probably took a chance trying to do it without the permit & got caught. It's obvious to me that whatever he was doing, it's visible from the road. If someone from the health department saw it, or anyone else, he was reported.

There's guidelines to install a septic system that require minimum distances, depths, ground conditions & more. It needs to be a certain distance from a fresh water source, like well water for drinking, or a neighbor's property line & their well. If the ground condtions suck, or the piping is installed wrong, then the septic system will fail & contaminate fresh water with bacteria. Also where I am, you need an engineered design & the whole system itself can end up costing over $10,000 or more.

The health department codes, as well as building codes, are there for a reason. You can argue about whether you should be able to do whatever you want with your own property all day long, but I've seen some really dumbass crap that has either gotten someone hurt, or ending up costing some poor bastard a ton of money.

true, but does this forego his constitutional rights of private property ownership and the ability to disallow individuals from entering his property without proper documentation?  he may be in the wrong, and that is fine.  But this does not give any individual, government or not (sans the Patriot Act), to enter upon his property without a court ordered search warrant.

[Old Moparz]

true, but does this forego his constitutional rights of private property ownership and the ability to disallow individuals from entering his property without proper documentation?  he may be in the wrong, and that is fine.  But this does not give any individual, government or not (sans the Patriot Act), to enter upon his property without a court ordered search warrant.

I'm not sure how the law works, but what last426 posted makes sense. Sometimes there are situations where, the way the law is written will work in favor of "no warrant" inspection I guess. An example where I'd want someone to be able to trespass, would be where an unsafe condition is "in progress" & might kill someone. Just the other day a man was killed locally installing pipe in a trench. The trench was 8 feet deep & the side collapsed. If a building inspector, or anyone who was aware, that an unprotected trench was dug & was able to stop the work, he'd be alive.

The trespass video didn't give the entire story, & it was comparable to a sound byte on TV news to get your attention. That's the main reason why I said I wasn't taking sides since the important info is missing. But, to give an opinion, I have mixed feelings on it. If I was in the middle of a project on my property & someone showed up nosing around, I'd be on my guard as to who they were, & why they were there. I'd be asking the person for I.D. & then calling the department they are from to verify it. Now if the situation was reversed, like if an inspector went to my neighbor who was installing a septic system next to my well, I'd be happy that he could show up & possibly stop him.

It's a gray area to me. 

[last426]

Here is a good resource to look at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/index.htm

Here is a Supreme Court case that discusses the issue in depth.  If you are against such warrantless searches, pay particular attention to the dissent.  http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/frank_v_maryland.htm


Kim

[Heck2G14]

Yes, I agree it def. needs to have more answers to make a informed decision. The old saying public servants can be your greatest friend or your worst enemy really is true.  This man would probably gladly let that Deputy on his property if someone was holding a gun to his head or his life was in danger.

[Rocky]

Seems to me that everyone was acting like asshats.  Seriously, how hard would it have been for the inspector to show the guy a code book or whatever that states that she does have the right to inspect his property.  Deputy whatshisnutz didn't seem to have a clue as to what was going on either.  I guess thats why he called for backup. 

[RD]

Here is a good resource to look at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/index.htm

Here is a Supreme Court case that discusses the issue in depth.  If you are against such warrantless searches, pay particular attention to the dissent.  http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/frank_v_maryland.htm


Kim

VERY GOOD READ!  Thanks for the link.

[51]     "The argument is wholly without merit, preposterous in fact. The basic premise of the prohibition against searches was not protection against self-incrimination; it was the common-law right of a man to privacy in his home, a right which is one of the indispensable ultimate essentials of our concept of civilization. It was firmly established in the common law as one of the bright features of the Anglo-Saxon contributions to human progress. It was not related to crime or to suspicion of crime. It belonged to all men, not merely to criminals, real or suspected. So much is clear from any examination of history, whether slight or exhaustive. The argument made to us has not the slightest basis in history. It has no greater justification in reason. To say that a man suspected of crime has a right to protection against search of his home without a warrant, but that a man not suspected of crime has no such protection, is a fantastic absurdity."


[52]     Judge Prettyman added that the Fourth Amendment applied alike to health inspectors as well as to police officers -- indeed to every and any official of government seeking admission to any home in the country:


[53]     "We emphasize that no matter who the officer is or what his mission, a government official cannot invade a private home, unless (1) a magistrate has authorized him to do so or (2) an immediate major crisis in the performance of duty affords neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate. This right of privacy is not conditioned upon the objective, the prerogative or the stature of the intruding officer. His uniform, badge, rank, and the bureau from which he operates are immaterial. It is immaterial whether he is motivated by the highest public purpose or by the lowest personal spite." Id., at 17. And see 44 Ill. L. Rev. 845.


[54]     The well-known protest of the elder Pitt against invasion of the home by the police, had nothing to do with criminal proceedings.


[55]     "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter -- all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

[last426]

To be clear, you quoted the dissent -- that is not what the court held -- it is what one of the judge's thought that it should hold.  So that is not the law, but one person's moaning about what the law should be.  Kinda like many replies to this thread.  Kim 

[Troy]

Was it one guy who dissented or four (or three?)? I'm not up on my legal language.
"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN concur, dissenting."

Nine judges right? "Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart"

Troy

[Old Moparz]

I'm going to call my lawyer to read through this thread before I post again. 

[RD]

To be clear, you quoted the dissent -- that is not what the court held -- it is what one of the judge's thought that it should hold.  So that is not the law, but one person's moaning about what the law should be.  Kinda like many replies to this thread.  Kim 

no I understood, I just agreed with the letter of dissent moreso than the ruling majority.  Overall, it was a good read, I just quoted that area because I liked what it had to say.  Thanks again.

[is_it_EVER_done?]

It's obvious to everyone that the nutcase is doing construction. More specifically it's obvious that he installing a septic system, but in any event If he has a permit, the inspectors have every right to enter his property. If he doesn't have a permit, they have the same right to enter his property. It's a simple matter of public health and safety.

What I find discouraging is to read the posts by the psychotic "I'd get my gun and kill them" group. You make it very easy for the gun controll advocates to mount a strong argument for gun controll, and make the rest of us look as insane as you guys.