Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Posted: 8/21/2006 2:47:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 2:58:26 AM EDT by Breugel]
He knew his rights... Would you draw down on the Bi@#h?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:16:13 AM EDT
9 minutes of video and no outcome. What's the point?
What did a judge or the second LEO that showed up do?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:18:10 AM EDT
No
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:40:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:42:59 AM EDT
I'd like to know how that came out.

I hope that dude got a lot of money.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:51:09 AM EDT
What is the finial outcome?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:00:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 4:19:22 AM EDT by 57Strat]

Originally Posted By SHIPSNIPE1:
9 minutes of video and no outcome. What's the point?
What did a judge or the second LEO that showed up do?



I believe the point is that:



1. A govt official thinks they have the power to trespass on private property without probable cause or a warrant.

2. A sworn officer of the law doesn't even know the law, and also thinks that a citizen of this country should allow govt officials to inspect their property without any probable cause or a warrant, "if they have nothing to hide".

3. A govt official thinks they can inspect someones property and not identify themselves (she refused to give the property owner her full name)


I think this type of action/thinking with law enforcement and govt officials is a widespread problem, and probably happens quite often. Since 99999.9% of the cases do not involve the govt officials being video taped, it's simply their word against the citizens word.

You can bet your ass that if the property owner did not have a video camera, he would have ended up in jail on assault and resisting-arrest charges.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:15:49 AM EDT
In order for her to be authorized to enter his property w/o warrant or consent, she has to be able to articulate some sort of exigent circumstance that needs to be immediately addressed or corrected in order to prevent or mitigate a clear and present danger to any person. Circumstances that if presented to a judge for a warrant would definitely result in a warrant being issued allowing entry. There did not seem to be such a circumstance in this case.

An example would be if you saw a person through their front window lying on their floor having a medical emergency - not breathing, bleeding heavily, etc. There would be legal grounds to enter to address the circumstance.

Hope he takes it to a jury because I bet the county will try very hard to get him to settle out of court.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:28:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billparadise:
I'd like to know how that came out.

I hope that dude got a lot of money.


+1, damn!
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:29:21 AM EDT
I think that the sticking point with the civil servant comes from the open fields doctrine, where the US supreme court has held that the wide open spaces have no expectation of privacy, so you can't apply the fourth if police were to search a field on your property and find marajuana, for instance.

HOWEVER, the open fields doctrine cases that I have read occured where police did violate no trespassing signs and entered the land on a search, but were not confronted by the landowner and asked to leave. If he has a case, it is not on the fourth amendment, but over the trespass.

In summary the only thing the Supreme court is willing to protect under the fourth with respect to property is the home and the curtilage (the peremeter directly adjacent to the home, such as the deck, the hedges, and the garage).
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:29:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billparadise:
I'd like to know how that came out.

I hope that dude got a lot of money.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:36:17 AM EDT
Shoulda just shot the lot of them.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:44:07 AM EDT
Well I'm pissed now. If this is modern-day justice, I anxiously await anarchy.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:44:41 AM EDT
I wonfer what would have happened if after she just walked on by him he pulled a gun and told her to leave?

I bet it wouldn't have been good for him.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:48:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIPSNIPE1:
9 minutes of video and no outcome. What's the point?
What did a judge or the second LEO that showed up do?


Nothing but a whole lot of stupid.

The second car was most likely a supervisor.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:48:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KyBlaster:
I wonfer what would have happened if after she just walked on by him he pulled a gun and told her to leave?

I bet it wouldn't have been good for him.


Use of deadly force would not be justified to defend property.

AT BEST he could inform her she is trespassing, unwanted, and after appealing to the Deputy inform her he is going to remove her. Then he lays hands on her pulls her off the property and gets arrested or manhandled by the officer, in which case he can sue for assault and/or false imprisonment. The down side of course, is that tape probably wouldn't be there to document the occurance once the cop had to get physical.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:49:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billparadise:
I'd like to know how that came out.

I hope that dude got a lot of money.


The statement he made "your going to make me rich" will damage his case.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:51:49 AM EDT
The inspector had neither permission to enter the property (actually, the owner specifically denied permission in person on tape) nor a warrant.

I wish the law allowed for defense of one's property against any illegal intrusion...even by the King's agents.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:54:57 AM EDT
In LA and many/most other places, there is defense of property, but it is not deadly force. You may ask somebody to leave your home/property and if they don't comply you can lay hands on them to remove them. If they fight back you have the right to defend yourself. If they present deadly force first you may use deadly force to defend yourself.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:55:00 AM EDT
I vaguely recall that the standard of protection from intrusion is less in matters of health or other codes which are not of a criminal nature.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:04:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lt557:

Originally Posted By billparadise:
I'd like to know how that came out.

I hope that dude got a lot of money.


The statement he made "your going to make me rich" will damage his case.



and what, exactly, were his damages?

perhaps she'll get fired and the officer will get reprimanded, but not much more.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:08:12 AM EDT
I love the "if you have nothing to hide" line from the LEO.

Cops like this make me fucking sick.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:11:53 AM EDT
If you have nothing to hide you should let us pull down your pants and ass-rape you.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:18:16 AM EDT
He should have shot them both.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:24:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
I love the "if you have nothing to hide" line from the LEO...




I've had more than one of them say that to me, too.

The property owner was his own worst enemy, just by talking way too much. Instead of getting emotional, he should have just been very clear and concise.

I think that if someone without a warrant ignored me and searched my property, I would have gotten physical.

I'd like to know the end game here - anyone have an update?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:25:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
I love the "if you have nothing to hide" line from the LEO.

Cops like this make me fucking sick.


they like most people are caught up in that "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

more and more people don't know thier rights and is sux to see a "leo" right in the thick of it.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:26:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
If you have nothing to hide you should let us pull down your pants and ass-rape you.


Although bluntly, that illustrates the point.

Just because you don't want to hand over everything to authorities doesn't mean you have something to hide, it means you wish to have your privacy.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:27:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 11Badass:
He should have shot them both.

Why shoot the police officer? Because he wasn't doing his job? That's kinda stupid.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:30:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By 11Badass:
He should have shot them both.

Why shoot the police officer? Because he wasn't doing his job? That's kinda stupid.


Well, if you are gonna shoot the broad, I doubt the LEO would just stand there and chuckle.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:33:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By 11Badass:
He should have shot them both.

Why shoot the police officer? Because he wasn't doing his job? That's kinda stupid.

Well, if you are gonna shoot the broad, I doubt the LEO would just stand there and chuckle.

Well, shooting him so you could shoot her makes tactical sense...but it would be wrong.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:36:06 AM EDT
how about a large dose of pepperspray for the "inspector" the moment she steps onto the property?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:42:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 5:43:06 AM EDT by Sturmwehr]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Well, if you are gonna shoot the broad, I doubt the LEO would just stand there and chuckle.


Legally, he wouldn't have been able to shoot the officer until he crossed over the property line.

Even then... you'd better get the best damn lawyer in the state to make your case for you.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:44:53 AM EDT
What would've happened if he were to physically remove her from his property?

What if he felt threatned and pimp slapped her
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:46:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:50:15 AM EDT
Although he sounded like a loon he took the best course of action by stating that she was not permitted on his property and documenting it. If there's a case this was the way to make it. Shooting, assaulting, getting physical would have done nothing but got him hurt and jailed. If you seriously believe in going that route then you're a fricken numbnut.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:51:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Curious.

What stopped him from "escorting" the lady off of his property?

Was she some sort of city building inspector?


F'real. Shoulda dragged her by the hair, caveman style.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:52:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:53:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 5:54:48 AM EDT by EPOCH96]
Seems to be some info on this debate at this thread

Both sides cite state statutes covering public health inspectors and what their powers are.

Just a snip from that thread


Sec. 4. (a) The executive board may, by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members, adopt reasonable rules on behalf of the state
department to protect or to improve the public health in Indiana.
(b) The rules may concern but are not limited to the following:
(1) Nuisances dangerous to public health.
(2) The pollution of any water supply other than where
jurisdiction is in the water pollution control board and department of
environmental management.
(3) The disposition of excremental and sewage matter.
(4) The control of fly and mosquito breeding places.
(5) The detection, reporting, prevention, and control of
diseases


Would be interesting to see what the courts in IN think

EPOCH
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:57:55 AM EDT
As much as I'd love to see people shot over this (seriously), in reality the best place to settle it is in the courtroom. While his rights were clearly violated, his life wasn't. Anything she finds will be completely inadmissible. The property owner commenting that they were gonna make him rich wasn't helpful, but the fact remains that his rights were clearly violated. BIG TIME. I don't know how else you could see it.

That has got to be one completely podunk PD. I'm frankly stunned that the deputy allowed this to happen. This is really basic stuff. I don't have a problem with a deputy being creative in asking for consent ("nothing to hide", and all that), but he clearly never got consent. He then just stood there as witness to blatant criminal tresspass. Unbeliveable.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:58:53 AM EDT
Since there were mounds of dirt he may have been burying some hazardous waste during his clean up. Anything like car batteries, paint cans, etc.. In that case he could be contaminating ground water.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 5:59:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 57Strat:

I believe the point is that:



1. A govt official thinks they have the power to trespass on private property without probable cause or a warrant.

2. A sworn officer of the law doesn't even know the law, and also thinks that a citizen of this country should allow govt officials to inspect their property without any probable cause or a warrant, "if they have nothing to hide".

3. A govt official thinks they can inspect someones property and not identify themselves (she refused to give the property owner her full name)


I think this type of action/thinking with law enforcement and govt officials is a widespread problem, and probably happens quite often. Since 99999.9% of the cases do not involve the govt officials being video taped, it's simply their word against the citizens word.

You can bet your ass that if the property owner did not have a video camera, he would have ended up in jail on assault and resisting-arrest charges.



That's fine and dandy.

Once again, what was the actual legal outcome?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:03:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EPOCH96:
Seems to be some info on this debate at this thread

Both sides cite state statutes covering public health inspectors and what their powers are.

Just a snip from that thread


Sec. 4. (a) The executive board may, by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members, adopt reasonable rules on behalf of the state
department to protect or to improve the public health in Indiana.
(b) The rules may concern but are not limited to the following:
(1) Nuisances dangerous to public health.
(2) The pollution of any water supply other than where
jurisdiction is in the water pollution control board and department of
environmental management.
(3) The disposition of excremental and sewage matter.
(4) The control of fly and mosquito breeding places.
(5) The detection, reporting, prevention, and control of
diseases


Would be interesting to see what the courts in IN think

EPOCH


I read that. None of that seems to even so much as imply that searches are permissible without a warrant or consent. It just gives an executive board the legislative authority to adopt rules to protect the public health in Indiana. That can not include "You're allowed to search without a warrant or consent".
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:03:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
Although he sounded like a loon he took the best course of action by stating that she was not permitted on his property and documenting it. If there's a case this was the way to make it. Shooting, assaulting, getting physical would have done nothing but got him hurt and jailed. If you seriously believe in going that route then you're a fricken numbnut.

+1
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:05:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CZ75_9MM:
Since there were mounds of dirt he may have been burying some hazardous waste during his clean up. Anything like car batteries, paint cans, etc.. In that case he could be contaminating ground water.


Could be, but there would need to be evidence of this sufficient enough to get a judge to sign a warrant. You can't simply arrive on someone else's property, look at a mound of dirt and say "Hmmm...could be hazardous waste" and enter without consequence.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:10:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By EPOCH96:
Seems to be some info on this debate at this thread

Both sides cite state statutes covering public health inspectors and what their powers are.

Just a snip from that thread


Sec. 4. (a) The executive board may, by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members, adopt reasonable rules on behalf of the state
department to protect or to improve the public health in Indiana.
(b) The rules may concern but are not limited to the following:
(1) Nuisances dangerous to public health.
(2) The pollution of any water supply other than where
jurisdiction is in the water pollution control board and department of
environmental management.
(3) The disposition of excremental and sewage matter.
(4) The control of fly and mosquito breeding places.
(5) The detection, reporting, prevention, and control of
diseases


Would be interesting to see what the courts in IN think

EPOCH


I read that. None of that seems to even so much as imply that searches are permissible without a warrant or consent. It just gives an executive board the legislative authority to adopt rules to protect the public health in Indiana. That can not include "You're allowed to search without a warrant or consent".


I think the issue *may be* that she wasn't necessairly doing a "search" for the purpose of obtaining incriminating evidence.

She was "protect(ing) or to improve the public health in Indiana"

For example, in the Commonwealth of VA, this pertains to State Foresters, WIldlife Officers, etc:

NOT LIABLE FOR TRESPASS IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES.-- No action for trespass shall lie against the State Forester, or any agent or employee of the State Forester for lawful acts done in performance of his duties.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:27:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 8:28:27 AM EDT by Cavalry99]
First off, we don't know what was going on in this video. For all we know those dirt piles were moved around to bury thousands of dead dogs. Or they could have been piles of dirt that were contaminated with fuel from underground storage tanks. There could have been a river in the guys back yard and the contaminants could have been flowing off killing the fish, or ruining a town's water supply.

Yes, I wholeheartadly agree that you should be able to tell someone to get off your property and leave if they are not welcome.

That being said, you all are running off at the mouth and passing judgement, talking about lawsuits and shooting LEO's, and there is'nt a one of you who knows shit about what was going on here and the cirumstances surrounding this video. If that guy was burying dead bodies on his property illegaly when they should have been cremated (which has happened), and you were the neighbor, you would be the first crying about "your rights".
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:34:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Well, if you are gonna shoot the broad, I doubt the LEO would just stand there and chuckle.


Legally, he wouldn't have been able to shoot the officer until he crossed over the property line.

Even then... you'd better get the best damn lawyer in the state to make your case for you.


I don't think he's "legal" shooting the officer even if the officer crosses over the property line.

Pretty fucked up situtation there. That health inspector seemed like a real piece of work.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:36:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 8:37:06 AM EDT by indianaman]
It pisses me off that the Cop didn't escort her off the property.that is like 30min west of me. i found more herecgi.ebay.com/Unlawfully-condemned-2-2-Acres-in-NW-Laporte-Indiana_W0QQitemZ230018247410QQihZ013QQcategoryZ1607Q­QcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:38:13 AM EDT
Locking gates are wonderful things to have.


I wonder if the arriving supervisor tore Officer Donut a new asshole.


I also wonder if it's possible to have that woman fired as part of a settlement clause.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:38:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavalry99:
First off, we don't know what was going on in this video. For all we know those dirt piles were moved around to bury thousands of dead dogs. Or they could have been piles of dirt that were contaminated with fuel from underground storage tanks. There could have been a river in the guys back yard and the contaminants could have been flowing off killing the fish, or ruining a town's water supply.

Yes, I wholeheartadly agree that you should be able to tell someone to get off your property and leave if they are not welcome.

That being said, you all are running off at the mouth and passing judgement, talking about lawsuits and shooting LEO's, and there is'nt a one of you who knows shit about what was going on here and the cirumstances surrounding this video. If that guy was burying dead bodies on his property illegaly when they should have been cremated (which has happened), and you were the neighbor, you would be the first crying about "your rights".


I agree with everything you said Cav. The thing is, if the health dept. suspected any of those worst case scenarios, they should have shown up with a warrant to search the property. She had obviously been there the day before, if she had reason to seriously suspect that something was amiss, why wouldn't she go through the proper channels instead of the "I'm with the .gov so I can do anything I damn well please" attitude.

I probably would have gone and started rummaging through her car and whatever personal effects she had in there.

As a side note, when are we going to learn that we peasants don't own shit or have exclusive rights to anything material, we are merely renting it from the government.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 8:39:08 AM EDT
Those that have suggested gunfire as a solution to this problem are insane wrong.

The court system is the place to solve these issues. No one's life was in danger. No need for gunfire.

Just take them to court.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Top Top