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.
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.
The bottom line is that under no circumstances did these people have authority to enter this property. They are required to bring authority (warrant) with them to enter the property. That is what the Constitution is supposed to be for. There are NO exceptions to the rule on that.
Au contraire. The 4th amendment does not guarantee unfettered privacy regardless of circumstances - it grants only a reasonable expectation of privacy. Court cases have been argued and decided that there are indeed circumstances when a warrantless search is legal. In fact, there is language on the books designed to avoid meritless cases claiming unlawful search and seizure from going to court - "exigent circumstances" and the "plain view" clause, for example.
If the videographers house had been on fire, "exigent circumstances" give police and fire fighters the legal right to enter the premises by whatever means necessary in order to evacuate the residents and control the fire.
Likewise, if there was an animal chained in the yard that was clearly wounded, the police have the right to enter the property and remove the animal that was in "plain sight."
So far, no one on this thread knows for sure how the OP case was resolved and if any court case determined whether the officials were or were not trespassing. However, the soil and equipment are in plain sight, the soil is piled high enough that a reasonable person could estimate how deep that hole is AND could surmise (reasonably) that the homeowner was doing some sort of plumbing (sewer, well, septic, etc). The PHO is required to give notice of inspection (which we could presume she gave the previous day). Once she has provided notice she's entitled to investigate. IF that man was digging a sewer, and did not have a permit, he could have been contaminating the water table and getting lots of people really sick - ecoli and other bacteria can kill. He does not have the right to contaminate the water. If my scenario is accurate you could go to the opposite extreme and claim that he's a domestic terrorist.
Au contraire. The 4th amendment does not guarantee unfettered privacy regardless of circumstances - it grants only a reasonable expectation of privacy. Court cases have been argued and decided that there are indeed circumstances when a warrantless search is legal. In fact, there is language on the books designed to avoid meritless cases claiming unlawful search and seizure from going to court - "exigent circumstances" and the "plain view" clause, for example.
If the videographers house had been on fire, "exigent circumstances" give police and fire fighters the legal right to enter the premises by whatever means necessary in order to evacuate the residents and control the fire.
Likewise, if there was an animal chained in the yard that was clearly wounded, the police have the right to enter the property and remove the animal that was in "plain sight."
So far, no one on this thread knows for sure how the OP case was resolved and if any court case determined whether the officials were or were not trespassing. However, the soil and equipment are in plain sight, the soil is piled high enough that a reasonable person could estimate how deep that hole is AND could surmise (reasonably) that the homeowner was doing some sort of plumbing (sewer, well, septic, etc). The PHO is required to give notice of inspection (which we could presume she gave the previous day). Once she has provided notice she's entitled to investigate. IF that man was digging a sewer, and did not have a permit, he could have been contaminating the water table and getting lots of people really sick - ecoli and other bacteria can kill. He does not have the right to contaminate the water. If my scenario is accurate you could go to the opposite extreme and claim that he's a domestic terrorist.
Based on what I found from a quick search, you are protected by the 4th amendment in your home and curtailage, basically land directly surrounding your home. "Open feilds" are not protected. So if you grew marijuana in your cornfeild and an officer saw it from the road, he can check it out without a warrant. On the other hand, if you had a fenced yard, they need to have a warrant. I think "exigent circumstances" only covers stuff like fires, gunshots, injuries and that sort of thing. The police can't enter without a warrant because they think you are running an illegal poker game, for example.
I think the explanation is that any person in the USA who uses equipment that transmits Radio Frequency, by that fact alone, authorizes the FCC to inspect it. Using the public airwaves constitutes tacit agreement to the regulations, partly because the USA is signatory to international treaties respecting their use, which makes those treaties the constitutional law of the land.
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.
Since we are all refering to the 4th amendment I thought it might be beneficial to post the text of such:
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.
So no matter which way anyone wants to slice it: the health inspector was violating the homeowner's 4th amendment right by searching his property without a warrant. There is a poster above who actually thinks that the woman was within the law by entering the citizen's private property without a warrant. I read their post with a heavy heart, while a feeling of mournful despair enveloped my soul.
We have become so accustomed to the government violating our rights that some of us are now actually defending them when they do!!! Read the text of the 4th amendment; it clearly states that NOBODY can search your property without a warrant. Every time a police officer searches a vehicle without a warrant the 4th amendment is violated; sadly, this happens thousands of times a day in our country. This claptrap I hear all the time about consent is ridiculous. "Oh, we didn't have a warrant but the owner consented to the search, your honor." Nowhere in the 4th amendment does it say that it is ok to begin a search solely after owner consent. The reason that the framers of the Bill of Rights did not put a consent clause in the 4th amendment is because if a government official is standing over you with a weapon and asking for your "consent" chances are you are going to concede. They were fresh escaped from the tyranny of England and these details where at the forefront of their minds when writing the Bill of Rights. So this "consent" garbage I hear about all the time is just that: GARBAGE. Chasing someone who is running away from a murder scene with a knife that is dripping blood, and then entering their home to arrest them is different. However, after that person is arrested the police still need a warrant to search the home.
Every time the police set up a roadside checkpoint to "randomly" look into your window for whatever reason, the 4th amendment is being violated. Every time a police officer searches a vehicle without a warrant because they claim that there was probable cause, the 4th amendment is violated. The 4th amendment clearly states that even if there is probable cause a warrant must still be issued prior to search.
When the government started issuing social security cards and numbers, they stated that these new numbers cannot be used for identification or any other purpose other than to acces the holders social security account. But what is happening now: two private "credit monitoring" companies have files on every American with their purchase and credit history attached to their social security numbers. Applicants for jobs and potential renter's of apartments are now "screened" through files attached to their social security numbers. As if your credit history is an accurate representation of the content of your character. What is on those "credit" files can now dictate the course your life can follow. People are now denied jobs, housing, cars, communication equipment, etc. because they made some late payments on a piece of merchandise years ago. The aforementioned situation violates the the 4th, the 9th and the 10th amendments. Yet we sit still and take it.
Judges have read this how they want, and the Supreme court decided that there are some cases where you can invade someones private property without a warrent.
I don't like what the health inspector did, I don't think it would have killed them to have just gotten a warrent. I'm sure the Judge would have given them one, its not that big of a deal.
Judges have read this how they want, and the Supreme court decided that there are some cases where you can invade someones private property without a warrent.
I don't like what the health inspector did, I don't think it would have killed them to have just gotten a warrent. I'm sure the Judge would have given them one, its not that big of a deal.
Please don't get me started on using "unreasonable" to unlock the door to almost any search. Because that is what has happened. And it is a huge part of the destruction of America that we see before our eyes every day.
The clear intent of the founders in using that word in the amendment was that there must be specific reason and evidence to suspect that individual of wrongdoing warranting intervention by the government.
But today, the powers that be in our society have been allowed to pervert that term into meaning something altogether different. That is - the idea that if an increase in certain kinds of behavior is observed in society, it is grounds to search and screen every individual looking for violators.
That is what happened with drug testing - probably the most flagrant violation of 4th amendment principle civilized society in the US has ever seen. It swept this sleeping nation in an end run around the constitution perverting the term unreasonable by saying - "well, there's a lot of drug use out there, so it is reasonable to search everyone". It has since come to mean almost anything with the result that the 4th amendment is no longer understood or respected by..well..probably most people in the US today.
NEWARK MAGIC is absolutely right when he says that "We have become so accustomed to the government violating our rights that some of us are now actually defending them when they do!!! Read the text of the 4th amendment; it clearly states that NOBODY can search your property without a warrant."
It just sets me on fire when I see the word unreasonable used by those with no respect for our founding principles in an attempt to render the amendment null and void. I'm not saying that you are doing that - just that we all need to be vigilant. We as citizens all have a responsibility to guard against this word being used as yet another building block for a police state. Because construction began years ago and continues as we speak.
Judges have read this how they want, and the Supreme court decided that there are some cases where you can invade someones private property without a warrent.
I don't like what the health inspector did, I don't think it would have killed them to have just gotten a warrent. I'm sure the Judge would have given them one, its not that big of a deal.
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:
Last edited by NEWARK MAGIC; 08-20-2009 at 12:29 PM..
Reason: I felt like it...
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.
