Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly, a judge would have issued a "rubber-stamp" warrant. That is what is so confusing about this story. It is a normal everyday procedure for the health department to get a warrant. Perhaps there is more information that is not being made available concerning this specific matter.
The way the original framers intended it was to protect citizens against unreasonable searches by forcing the party doing the search to obtain a warrant first. The only entity legally capable of deciding who should or should not be searched is a judge. You are right: the Supreme Court has decided cases in favor of searches without warrants; and they were wrong in doing so, in my opinion. The text of the amendment clearly states, " and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...." ; which means the person that wants to conduct a search should not be able to decide under their own volition the legality of such a search. An oath or an affirmation concerning the probable cause of the search has to be made to another party (a judge) or else the person conducting the search is in effect acting as an official employee of a government agency and a de facto judge and jury. This goes against the whole idea of the traditional concept of the American checks-and-balances system. We have gotten so far away from the original, intrinsic, and essential meaning of the words of this amendment. It is worded clearly, it is concise and to the point without excess verbiage; yet here we are over 200 years after it was written watching it be flagrantly violated every single day. I was floored when I began to study law and history in high-school; reading about Supreme Court decisions that blatantly went against the original intent of the amendment. Sadly, this is what we get when presidents appoint idealogical zealots to the Supreme Court.
Although the "Urban Dictionary" is hardly a serious piece of literature, this specific entry hits the nail right on the head:
I tried to rep you again for this, but it won't let me. I keep forgetting about the rep icon and too often use the quik-rep. I've gotta work on that.
Anyway, thank you for this - an excellent explanation of the thinking that went into 4th amendment principle. Unfortunately, I think it will be lost on most and I sure wish I didn't have good reason to be that cynical.
Because you are hurting your neighbors by broadcasting outside of regulations. Most FCC regulations are put in place so that people aren't effected by the radiation. If someone is running a non-licensed radio station, they are probably putting out to much radiation at the height of their tower.
Also, companies pay good money to lease frequencies from the government. If you are broadcasting on their frequency, it will disrupt their signal, and disrupt their business, and in fact you are stealing from the company.
But as I said, the main reason they can come into your house and tell you to stop, is because its dangerous to others, and yourself. Just like committing suicide, they can come in and try and stop you from doing harm to yourself.
That argument doesn't stand up. People operating meth labs - an activity that is certainly far more dangerous than operating a radio transmitter - enjoy the protections of the 4th Amendment.
Jtur provided a much better (and seemingly better informed) answer. You provided a WAG that doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny.
That argument doesn't stand up. People operating meth labs - an activity that is certainly far more dangerous than operating a radio transmitter - enjoy the protections of the 4th Amendment.
Jtur provided a much better (and seemingly better informed) answer. You provided a WAG that doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny.
A meth lab doesn't penetrate a neighbor more than 50 yards away. Someone operating an illegal radio station would be effecting everyone on their street, block, or neighborhood.
A meth lab doesn't penetrate a neighbor more than 50 yards away.
It does when it explodes, or when the toxic fumes generated by it enter the neighbors' homes.
I don't even know if jtur is right - I don't care enough about this tangent to look up the FCC rules, but I do know that your argument is just plain silly...
It does when it explodes, or when the toxic fumes generated by it enter the neighbors' homes.
I don't even know if jtur is right - I don't care enough about this tangent to look up the FCC rules, but I do know that your argument is just plain silly...
Yeah, you say that, but what happens if everyone on a block where someone is broadcasting illegally gets cancer.
I didn't make the rules, I'm just explaining it to you.
YouTube - Kop Busters Raid - Raw Footage#
Here is a nice example of police violating the 4th amendment, only this time it blew up in their faces. They claimed that they received a credible tip that there was an illegal pot growing operation in a home. What really happened was that an anonymous letter was sent to the police by a group called Kopbusters. The cops lied to a judge, got a warrant and then raided the home. They had to lie to the judge because a warrant cannot be issued based on an anonymous letter. When they arrived at the Texas home they found grow lights shining down on two little evergreen saplings. The whole thing was a set-up to expose illegal police actions. This is a typical example of how local police departments skirt the constitution of the United States; this goes on every day in many American towns and cities.
Last edited by NEWARK MAGIC; 08-21-2009 at 06:58 PM..
Reason: I forgoteteted stufffs an thigggs
I bet the Kopbusters were arrested and charged with at least, falsely reporting a crime, s well as obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, contempt of court, flight to avoid prosecution, impersonating a suspect, use of the US mails to defraud, etc. Legislators are not stupid, They make sure they have plenty of statutes on the books to make sure that anybody can be arrested and charged with anything at any time, most imporatntly with a bunch of pile-on laws, for example, conspiracy to all of the above. Even, if they want to, possession of tools to commit the above crimes (ball point pens, extension cords, etc.)
Between comments on youtube and following a google trail it seems his name is Ray Kirkus and this took place in LaPorte County Indiana. The details on why the health inspector was there are not real clear but apparently someone filed a complaint that he was digging an illegal septic system and had contaminated (or could potentially contaminate) the drinking waters of his neighbors who use wells. Apparently, Julie did have the right to go on the property (though it could be argued she didn't handle the situation very well) though it appears she didn't do everything by the book either (such as complying with his request regarding why she was there).
Ray was obviously upset by all of this and put a number of signs up on his property. Someone took these photos Pictures by 3rdpartyREP - Photobucket
Of all the links I found, Sheriff Allows Illegal Trespass [Archive] - eBaum's World Forum was the most helpful. You may be able to contact a poster there (if so inclined) and get the actual court documents as she was offering to fax them. I didn't check to see if Indiana court records are available online.
Something very interesting mentioned there (and in the photos) is that he was denied a jury trial despite requesting it. Also, he was in the process of appealing the courts decision and they moved forward anyway. I have no legal training or knowledge beyond the average (or perhaps not even that!) person but I thought you always had the right to a jury. My guess is that the difference here is civil and criminal? I thought the appeals process would prevent the courts from moving forward as well but apparently that's not accurate either.
I don't know where or why in the process that a jury trial was requested. In Maryland jury trials can be brought for zoning permit applications that are denied where there is a question of fact and almost always these cases do not involve such questions. Denied permits are often appealed for decision by the bench.
Bottom line is that water supply and septic is a health code enforced in a variety of ways. If the dude was planning to violate the code then get him off the property so that someone else can do it correctly.
I posted a thread about Appalachia entitled "History Lesson for Racists." The invasion by police, as cited by another YouTube within this thread is about the way mountain folk were treated during the Civil War.
I bet the Kopbusters were arrested and charged with at least, falsely reporting a crime, s well as obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, contempt of court, flight to avoid prosecution, impersonating a suspect, use of the US mails to defraud, etc. Legislators are not stupid, They make sure they have plenty of statutes on the books to make sure that anybody can be arrested and charged with anything at any time, most imporatntly with a bunch of pile-on laws, for example, conspiracy to all of the above. Even, if they want to, possession of tools to commit the above crimes (ball point pens, extension cords, etc.)
The individual who started Kopbusters was formerly a police officer in the town where the cops in the video were caught violating the 4th amendment. As far as I know he was never arrested or charged in connection with this incident. I read that he informed prosecutors of certain "knowledge" he had concerning the police department and a certain judge. It sounds like the prosecutor didn't want to touch anyone involved with this one with a ten foot pole.
Why do you suppose the founders wasted their time writing the rest of the Constitution, if the 2nd Amendment was all that was needed to maintain your kind of order? Why waste time with due process, of the only thing that counts for determining guilt or innocence is muzzle velocity?
Isn't it funny how every thread eventually turns into a gun-nut thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, thank you for this - an excellent explanation of the thinking that went into 4th amendment principle. Unfortunately, I think it will be lost on most and I sure wish I didn't have good reason to be that cynical.
