Officer Alllows Illegal Trespass!

[Troy]

It's about the same as the "I'll sue you" group.

Why didn't the health inspector's office call the county engineer's office to see if he had a permit first and then check it out together? Oh, I know, he'd have finished three months before they got a reply. (Sorry, just a little humor there.) The officer should have known the law and explained it to the homeowner before allowing the inspector just to wander on in. It didn't appear that he knew the correct answer though and he was waiting for the poor girl to be assaulted so he'd have a reason to arrest the guy. If she was there the day before then she had to have told the police the situation and they should have been expecting a confrontation. Another question, if the inspector had every right to enter the property then why wait a day? She should have called for backup immediately when the guy ran her off the first day. Also, if they were legally entitled to enter the property then why park on the road? And what's the deal with not having a last name on an ID badge? Whether he was right or wrong the situation could certainly have been handled better. As it stands they all three look clueless and it's forever caught on tape.

Back to the court cases from earlier, the assertion is that if you do not answer the door then it is the equivalent of obstruction? Where I live if you knock on the door unexpectedly you're likely to be met with a shotgun. Things are different in rural areas than in the city and people tend to be wary of strangers. To be honest, I usually ignore anyone at the door if I don't know them. It's usually a salesman of some sort. I would answer if I saw a police officer but I wouldn't bother with anyone else. I am particularly on edge these days since our house was broken into and we're closed off enough that the neighbors couldn't see anything. The detective's explanation is that it was someone who picked the house at random, knocked on the door, and went around back to check for an entrance when no one answered. Had I (or the dogs) been home they'd have met a much different scene when they busted through the back door. If I'd have answered the door in the first place they'd have just gone off to rob someone else (or tried to bust in that way but he says they'll usually just make up an excuse and leave). We have almost no crime where I live and part of the reason is that the crooks aren't willing to chance an encounter with a ticked off redneck while snooping around the barn.

Troy

[Rack]

I have no problem with that lady (and cop) entering his property AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

When you don't put your foot down for this kind of stuff the government WILL try and take more away from you. If she had "probable cause" to enter his property then she must of had "probable cause" to get a warrant as well.

[hemihead]

If he was doing any kind of Septic work, other than a Health factor being involved, what do you think the main reason would be behind this woman's visit? The money factor of course! He probably didn't give the local government money for a permit.It's always about Money.

[1BAD68]

If he was doing any kind of Septic work, other than a Health factor being involved, what do you think the main reason would be behind this woman's visit? The money factor of course! He probably didn't give the local government money for a permit.It's always about Money.

But, the guy is a total jerk and just dug a deeper hole for himself.

[dukeboy_318]

I live in Indiana and by indiana law, law enforcement or public officals are allowed to look on private property with out a warrant as long as they do not enter any buildings and do not some with in 50 yards of the primary place of residence (a.k.a the house)  I still agree that this is wrong and both should be sued.

[CharlieCharger]

He was obviously hiding a little surprise in the backyard..and he seems like a nut, but I think its still wrong.

[6670charger]

I have no problem with that lady (and cop) entering his property AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

When you don't put your foot down for this kind of stuff the government WILL try and take more away from you. If she had "probable cause" to enter his property then she must of had "probable cause" to get a warrant as well.

It was apparently not a crimiinal matter and there was no search being done for evidence of a crime.  Warrants ARE NOT legally required in these situations.  If you don't like it, change the Consitution.

I can't open the video, but from what I've read so far, it seems that an Inspector was checking on some sort of construction project being done by a guy who seems a little over the edge.  If a Sheriff's Deputy was accompanying the female inspector, it was likely because she requested this after having had a bad experience the day prior.  I've accompanied several people from Social Workers to Inspectors on visits to the homes of people who act like this guy sounds like he was. 

As to the officer doing his job, I can't say for sure what that was supposed to be without being able to view the video.  He can only enforce criminal and local ordinance codes.  His primary purpose (from what it sounds like) was to provide the Inspector some level of protection in the event the homeowner decided to do something stupid........like shoot the Inspector or threaten her with a weapon.

Again, based on the information I've been reading, it sounds like she was simply checking on some project this nut was working on and was expecting a confrontation.   She had every legal right to be on the property to do that job.  The Deputy had every legal right to be on the property to assist her, and as such, full legal authority to enforce a criminal law if something had happened.............WITHOUT A WARRANT.

[Vainglory, Esq.]

How did I miss this thread?  Pretty interesting stuff.  I think last426 has got it all covered, but in response to:

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."

Four justices dissented.  WO Douglas wrote the dissent, and the other three added their names to it as a form of agreement.  Often there will be separate dissents and concurrences, and sometimes concurrences in the judgment but not on the reasoning, etc.  My "favorite" is when there's a plurality holding. 

Also, to RD:

does this forego his constitutional rights to private property ownership

The idea that we have Constitutional Rights to property is not strictly true, despite the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing coming from John Locke's "life, liberty and property."  Jefferson swapped them at the last minute.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one has an absolute right to property; the closest thing is the Due Process clause that says, in effect, that although you don't have an absolute right to your property, the government can't take it without fair procedures and just compensation.  Property rights generally come from the common law and state statute, not the Constitution.

That's not to say that I think it's necessarily right.  In fact, I kind of wish that, instead of swapping pursuit of happiness for property in the Declaration, Jefferson had just tacked it on.  Or even better, that it would have been added to the Bill of Rights.  But we can't go back in time.


And finally, a lawyer joke for last426, in honor of my taking a final exam in property tomorrow:

My property professor stole my will to live.  I was thinking of bringing an action for replevin, but I decided that trover would be just as good...

[John_Kunkel]

In the beginning of the video the property owner states "all I'm doing is moving some dirt around". In many venues a grading permit is need to "move dirt around" since this can cause all kinds of drainage and erosion issues on adjacent property; around here if the permit is not displayed so as to be visible from off the property the county has the right to enter the property. AMHIK

The "No Trespassing" sign the owner keeps ranting about has no weight if the government official has the right to enter the property.

[hemihead]

In the beginning of the video the property owner states "all I'm doing is moving some dirt around". In many venues a grading permit is need to "move dirt around" since this can cause all kinds of drainage and erosion issues on adjacent property; around here if the permit is not displayed so as to be visible from off the property the county has the right to enter the property. AMHIK

The "No Trespassing" sign the owner keeps ranting about has no weight if the government official has the right to enter the property.

So you need a Grading permit to move dirt around? Again , it just translates to money.Whether it be the Federal,State, or Local
the Government just can't seem to get its hands deep enough into our pockets it seems.Makes you wonder what the purpose of all the WWII
vets was.So their Grandchildren could screw up the freedoms they fought and died to give the rest of the world? Reminds me of a motto " Don't
  Trend On Me"

[Skued]

And finally, a lawyer joke for last426, in honor of my taking a final exam in property tomorrow:

My property professor stole my will to live.  I was thinking of bringing an action for replevin, but I decided that trover would be just as good...

What do you think it's worth? 

Good luck on your final.

Steve

[RD]

In the beginning of the video the property owner states "all I'm doing is moving some dirt around". In many venues a grading permit is need to "move dirt around" since this can cause all kinds of drainage and erosion issues on adjacent property; around here if the permit is not displayed so as to be visible from off the property the county has the right to enter the property. AMHIK

The "No Trespassing" sign the owner keeps ranting about has no weight if the government official has the right to enter the property.

So you need a Grading permit to move dirt around? Again , it just translates to money.Whether it be the Federal,State, or Local
the Government just can't seem to get its hands deep enough into our pockets it seems.Makes you wonder what the purpose of all the WWII
vets was.So their Grandchildren could screw up the freedoms they fought and died to give the rest of the world? Reminds me of a motto " Don't
  Trend On Me"

I am sincerely not trying to be a dick by saying to you, it is "Do Not Tread On Me".

[Vainglory, Esq.]

And finally, a lawyer joke for last426, in honor of my taking a final exam in property tomorrow:

My property professor stole my will to live.  I was thinking of bringing an action for replevin, but I decided that trover would be just as good...

What do you think it's worth? 

Good luck on your final.

Steve

Well I sold my soul for a donut hole back in 1989, so I think I'll just tack on inflation and go from there...

[69_Hemi_Charger]

I thought that video just might incite some sort of discussion 

I spent a little bit of time doing some research as I also live in Indiana, and have quite a bit of land in the rural country. I find the circumstances in the video to be a little suspect but here are the Indiana Codes that relate to the movie:

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass
    35-43-2-2 Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
        (1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
        (2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
        (3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
        (4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
        (5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent; or
        (6) knowingly or intentionally:
            (A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
            (B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
    (b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
        (1) personal communication, oral or written; or
        (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.
    (c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:
        (3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
        (7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
        ( A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
        (9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
        (10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.

And Here:

IC 16-20-1-23
Inspection of private property; property in which officer has interest
     Sec. 23. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the local health officer or the officer's designee may enter upon and inspect private property, at proper times after due notice, in regard to the possible presence, source, and cause of disease. The local health officer or designee may order what is reasonable and necessary for prevention and suppression of disease and in all reasonable and necessary ways protect the public health.
    (b) However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided for in this article.
    (c) This section does not prevent inspection of premises in which a local health officer has an interest if the premises cannot otherwise be inspected. If the premises cannot otherwise be inspected, the county health officer shall inspect the premises personally.




Okay. I know that is a lot of legal jargon and kind of lengthy, but those are the two appying laws within Indiana. I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine on this very issue while we were enjoying some dinner, and he told me that the Health Officer Code had a typo in subsection "b". If you read it the statement makes almost no sense whatsoever. He says that the amended version says "However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect the property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise when disallowed entrance to private property, not including places of public attendance without an appropriate warrant. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided in this article".

So in Indiana this is illegal. The owner very obviously asked them not to enter his property and the health inspector completely ignored this request. My only qualm with those who would argue she was doing it for the public good is that if that is the truth, then it would not have been difficult for her to get a warrant and then inspect his property. It's really not difficult to get a warrant if you have probable cause that the person is doing something illegal. Warrants were designed to protect an abuse of governmental power, and I am definately against taking away any of the protection that warrants give the people.

Furthermore, even if this were allowed within Indiana, one could definately make a claim against the fourth amendment and take it through the appeals process. My lawyer friend said that since it is a direct claim based on the constitution, it could easily be favored within the State Appeals or the Supreme. I have no idea if that guy sued this lady, but I sure hope he did. He even has a claim against the officer as he did not do his duty to uphold the law nor did he "Serve and Protect" the man, which happens to include protection from harassment.

Neither the lady nor the officer had a working knowledge of the law and should be reprimanded just for that fact. Hopefully they both get sued and that guy gets an apology and a little bit of money for his hassle.


my two bits.... 

Justin

[Shakey]

How did I miss this thread? 

You were too busy disrespecting the Canadian Military and shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing about.   

[RD]

(b) However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided for in this article.

what this means is that a local health officer cannot inspect any property that he/she may be looking to purchase or has any personal interests, hence if they were to "survey" property based upon the constructs of their position for personal reasons, this would be a clear violation of ethics and promotes a conflict of interest.  Therefore, they would be removed from their position for (1) using their position for personal gain and (2) putting forth personal interests while being paid for a position not congruent with their essential tasks and duties.

Anyway, because you posted the above information, the guy with the video camera was the one in the wrong, not the health inspector, nor the policeman.  No matter how much it sucks, the law was on their side.  Thanks for posting that.  I learned something today.

[last426]

    (b) However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided for in this article.

Okay. I know that is a lot of legal jargon and kind of lengthy, but those are the two appying laws within Indiana. I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine on this very issue while we were enjoying some dinner, and he told me that the Health Officer Code had a typo in subsection "b". If you read it the statement makes almost no sense whatsoever. He says that the amended version says "However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect the property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise when disallowed entrance to private property, not including places of public attendance without an appropriate warrant. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided in this article".

So in Indiana this is illegal. The owner very obviously asked them not to enter his property and the health inspector completely ignored this request. My only qualm with those who would argue she was doing it for the public good is that if that is the truth, then it would not have been difficult for her to get a warrant and then inspect his property. It's really not difficult to get a warrant if you have probable cause that the person is doing something illegal. Warrants were designed to protect an abuse of governmental power, and I am definately against taking away any of the protection that warrants give the people.

Furthermore, even if this were allowed within Indiana, one could definately make a claim against the fourth amendment and take it through the appeals process. My lawyer friend said that since it is a direct claim based on the constitution, it could easily be favored within the State Appeals or the Supreme. I have no idea if that guy sued this lady, but I sure hope he did. He even has a claim against the officer as he did not do his duty to uphold the law nor did he "Serve and Protect" the man, which happens to include protection from harassment.

Neither the lady nor the officer had a working knowledge of the law and should be reprimanded just for that fact. Hopefully they both get sued and that guy gets an apology and a little bit of money for his hassle.

my two bits.... 

Justin

As of today's date, the statute is published as is.  Check link http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title16/ar20/ch1.html 
To me, section b is not at all hard to read.  How in the world would your attorney even know that there was a "typo?"  And, leaving out whole clauses is not a typo.  Lastly, perhaps there are some, but I know of no states that do not provide for warrantless searches in situations like this.  As to your statement "My lawyer friend said that since it is a direct claim based on the constitution" point him to the cases that I linked to above.  Those Supreme Court cases clearly deal with the issue at hand. 

As to the replevin/trover joke, teehee (after a refresh from wiki).  I will never forget on my property exam not remembering the term "attornment" -- big deal, I have never used it in all these years and I do a lot of property work.  Hope you did great on the exams.  I would imagine that most reading this thread would be astounded at what a law school exam is -- I know for sure that I was -- they kicked my behind the first time.  Kim

[6670charger]

Finally had a chance to view the video on a computer that would run it. 

I was unable to hear or establish anywhere in it, other than whatever the property owner who was making the tape was saying, exactly why the lady and officer were at his home.  He is obviously a bit over the edge.  I've met several people just like him while doing my job as a cop.  I've also been taped and threatened with this very same thing after entering someone's property to do my job, and being being told to leave.
Nothing has ever come of them.  Why?  Because the Street Corner Attorneys I was dealing with interpreted the law to satisfy their own beliefs and desires, and were completely wrong in their interpretation of the statutes. 

The Inspector and the officer were certainly conversing to verify and confirm her grounds to be on the premesis.  There was no indication that they didn't know what they were doing.  They were simply trying to decide how to handle the situation.   I was unable to tell exactly why she was there.   She had obviously been there the day before, and had a similar experience with this guy then.  She apparently felt the need to bring an officer along with her, and probably did the right thing in doing so.  The officer's only job was to ensure that nothing led to violence.   He wouldn't have even needed to say a word.  All he did do was attempt to gain the property owners cooperation.   There was also no evidence that he was calling for backup.  He did talk into his radio mike, however that may have been to inform his dispatch that he was going to be a while, or to answer their call to find out how things were going.

If the inspector had grounds to be on the property, which she very likely did have, then neither she nor the officer did anything wrong.  No warrants necessary as both had legal grounds to enter the premisis.

If the inspector did not have grounds to be there, then she is guilty of trespass, and the officer for failing to do anything to stop her. 

Problem is, we just don't know.  The video doesn't make clear exactly why she was there, and after listening to the video, I certainly don't trust the property owner's assessment as being accurate.  I certainly understand that there are some people who for whatever reasons, don't want the Government checking up on them or entering their property.  Fact is though, there are times when the Government has the authority, and thus the right, to do so.  They don't need warrants to go on the property in these instances, and there is no State in this Country that would enact laws which would prohibit thier Inspectors and Officers from entering someones property to conduct official and legitimate business. 

In this case, the Inspector and Officer will certain have to justify their legal authority for being on this guy's property, but the property owner will also have to prove that they did not.  If he does sue the County and the agencies the officer and Inspector work for, he has the Burden of Proof that they were in the wrong.

[Troy]

(b) However, a local health officer, or a person acting under the local health officer, shall not inspect property in which the local health officer has any interest, whether real, equitable, or otherwise. Any such inspection or any attempt to make such inspection is grounds for removal as provided for in this article.

what this means is that a local health officer cannot inspect any property that he/she may be looking to purchase or has any personal interests, hence if they were to "survey" property based upon the constructs of their position for personal reasons, this would be a clear violation of ethics and promotes a conflict of interest.  Therefore, they would be removed from their position for (1) using their position for personal gain and (2) putting forth personal interests while being paid for a position not congruent with their essential tasks and duties.

Anyway, because you posted the above information, the guy with the video camera was the one in the wrong, not the health inspector, nor the policeman.  No matter how much it sucks, the law was on their side.  Thanks for posting that.  I learned something today.

I read that the same way (but IANAL). I took it as it would be wrong for the health inspector (or their employees?) to make decisions or levy fines on a piece of property that they already own, their buddy/family owns, or that they would like to purchase. I guess technically it could cover the property of an ex spouse and/or anyone they may have a personal vendetta against. Basically if the official gets into a situation where their judgement/ethics comes in to play then they need to defer to another. It doesn't say that *no* official has the right - just ones who have a personal interest.

Troy

[red72chrgr]

Well, this is being discussed on another board on a site I frequent. I made a comment over there and was "politely" told  maybe I should go elsewhere.  As for this "episode", only those directly involved ( the inspector and the land owner) know what is going on. The officer is doing what he deems best by the "facts" given by the inspector. I don't agree with his handling of the situation, he could've of at least TRIED to humor the guy knowing the guy was a "whack job".  As for the laws, The Constitution, Bill of Rights, these "items" were never written for the common man or woman.  They were written for those with monetary interests. I firmly believe this and always will. Please don't tell me to leave if I don't like it here, that only enforces my belief. If the above mentioned documents were meant for the common man or woman, there would be no reason to say that the words or statements in them do not say what is written but what someone believes them to say.  Government is fine until it or their employees disrespect another human being, after that it becomes nothing good. Go ahead and pick certain words,phrases, or statements out of the above and flame away, it's what I expect.

[John_Kunkel]

In the beginning of the video the property owner states "all I'm doing is moving some dirt around". In many venues a grading permit is need to "move dirt around" since this can cause all kinds of drainage and erosion issues on adjacent property; around here if the permit is not displayed so as to be visible from off the property the county has the right to enter the property. AMHIK

The "No Trespassing" sign the owner keeps ranting about has no weight if the government official has the right to enter the property.

So you need a Grading permit to move dirt around?

In most categories of the building trades I would agree with you but I have seen (and been involved in the reworking of) some homespun grading attempts that wound up in major flooding; one guy decided he wanted to level the culvert in the rear of his property to plant a flower garden. His "improvement" resulted in the flooding of half a dozen homes in the big storm of '95. (Slick Willie visited to view the carnage)

[Rocky]

There was also no evidence that he was calling for backup.  He did talk into his radio mike, however that may have been to inform his dispatch that he was going to be a while, or to answer their call to find out how things were going.

I guess that second cruiser just happened to show up by accident?  I hope you're not a detective. 

Hopefully that guy was more confident in explaining how she did have the right to inspect his property.

[69_Hemi_Charger]

I apologize for the bit about the health codes being amended. My "lawyer" friend was mistaken....go figure. Nonetheless the laws remains as I had originally posted minus the bit of the typo. My friend did however see that there was a Lloyd who was filing suit in Laporte County of Indiana, so I will possibly get some info on that later on. He might be able to overturn the Indiana Code if he gets himself a good lawyer....

You know, as much as I don't like it, it appears that the Health Officer was in the right. Although the Codes seem to be slightly paradoxical in the fact that a Health Officer is not on the exemption list of illegal trespass codes. I personally am more annoyed by the fact that neither the officer nor the lady had a working knowledge of the law and were unable to cite the law that allowed them to search his property. I would have stopped her from getting on my land nonetheless and dealt with the consequences of what I believe to be right. I still hold that if what he was doing on his land was bad for the public health AND there was enough probable cause to believe that this is the case, then a warrant would have been simple to get. That is the whole reason of a warrant, to prevent authority from abusing their powers.

Anyways, apologies for the whole typo bit. My mistake.

Justin

[69_Hemi_Charger]

Well, this is being discussed on another board on a site I frequent. I made a comment over there and was "politely" told  maybe I should go elsewhere.  As for this "episode", only those directly involved ( the inspector and the land owner) know what is going on. The officer is doing what he deems best by the "facts" given by the inspector. I don't agree with his handling of the situation, he could've of at least TRIED to humor the guy knowing the guy was a "whack job".  As for the laws, The Constitution, Bill of Rights, these "items" were never written for the common man or woman.  They were written for those with monetary interests. I firmly believe this and always will. Please don't tell me to leave if I don't like it here, that only enforces my belief. If the above mentioned documents were meant for the common man or woman, there would be no reason to say that the words or statements in them do not say what is written but what someone believes them to say.  Government is fine until it or their employees disrespect another human being, after that it becomes nothing good. Go ahead and pick certain words,phrases, or statements out of the above and flame away, it's what I expect.

They were written for American's as a whole, not only those with money. If you want to argue the elastic clause, then that would be another whole can of worms, but you couldn't argue that the Constitution was written for only those with monetary interests. The beginning of the constitution itself contradicts this belief, "We the people". Not "We the CEO's of Vast Corporations". It was written with American's in mind, the same as the declaration and various other American documents.

I don't really know why you think we are going to tell you to leave the forum nor why you would think that we will get pissed off because your veiws are different then ours, but this isn't a forum of rich guys and radicals.
It's a forum of charger and mopar lovers. 

Justin

[red72chrgr]

You're correct about the wording 69_Hemi but I still believe that it was written for those it would benefit the most and that does not seem to be the common person. You and I both know there were no such thing as CEO's of vast Corps at that time only rich,well connected individuals. These people wrote these items. I don't want to get this thread locked or tick anybody off, I feel the way I do and nobody can change my mind. As for my thought about expressing my opinion or belief and getting asked to leave the site, it wouldn't be the first time I've been asked to leave places on the internet or in real life. Ah well I've gotten used to it. C-ya.