Search warrants for code violations?

Page 1 of 2  
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search warrants if they suspect “code” violations."
Huh?
http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg/
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg/
Glad to hear the baggers are doing something constructive, not jes flapping their overwrought collective gums. I hope they prevail in this case.
nb
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

commission
http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg /
Couldn't be a better proof of the saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Look for more stupidity like this as bankrupt local governments seek to "fee us to death."
Soon they'll be swabbing your dog's mouth to find pooper scooper violators:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/us/02dogs.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
<<Canine DNA is now being used to identify the culprits who fail to clean up after their pets, an offense that Deborah Violette, for one, is committed to eradicating at the apartment complex she manages.
Everyone who owns a dog in her complex, Timberwood Commons in Lebanon, N.H., must submit a sample of its DNA, taken by rubbing a cotton swab around inside the animal's mouth.
The swab is sent to BioPet Vet Lab, a Knoxville, Tenn., company that enters it into a worldwide database. If Ms. Violette finds an unscooped pile, she can take a sample, mail it to Knoxville and use a DNA match to identify the offending owner.>>
What's NH's state motto? Leave free or die? I guess it's dying time.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green posted for all of us...

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg /
I'm afraid the Constitution means nothing.
I wonder if this will evolve to the "inspectors" writing their own "search warrants"? Like the Patriot Act did to Federal agencies...
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tekkie® wrote:

The Patriot Act did no such thing. It expanded the use of "administrative subpoenas" from the handful of places already authorized by law (financial institutions, storage shed rentals, etc.) to any commercial facility.
Here's why the change was sought:
On the morning of 9/11, FBI agents fanned out in Boston hoping to get the hotel check-out records of guests that had left earlier that morning. The idea was that by matching these guests to the airplane manifests they might uncover a clue leading to suspects still in the air.
In every case, the hotels refused, citing "privacy" concerns. There is, of course, no LEGAL privacy right to a commercial transaction; the hotels were merely following their own policies. The hotels could have been compelled via a warrant or grand jury subpoena, but those would have taken several hours to perfect.
The change provided by the Patriot Act revision now allows the FBI to flush out these records forthwith.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg /
I wonder if the enforcement guys wear uniforms. With Brown Shirts.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder what the bounty is. And I wonder if the little kids are being given a special class in school on how to report their evil dominating controlling mess-up-your-social life parents.................................
Steve
Heart surgery pending? www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com Heart Surgery Survival Guide
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You should read your municipal code. Many places already give the building inspector rights to enter a premises that even the police don't have. You don't _have_ to let the inspector in, but they can pull your CO and then you're in a pissing match with a big-bellied drunk. Not a good idea.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

issue
<<You should read your municipal code. Many places already give the building inspector rights to enter a premises that even the police don't have. You don't _have_ to let the inspector in, but they can pull your CO and then you're in a pissing match with a big-bellied drunk. Not a good idea.>>
I read an article in the NYT archive about "poop scoop" inspectors in NYC. Since the violation is of the health code only, you can apparently give the inspector a false name or none, if stopped and they can't issue a citation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/nyregion/05scooper.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us
"Mr. Otibu approached and asked for picture identification. Without identification, agents cannot write summonses, and a number of dog owners sometimes refuse to show ID or claim to have left it at home. Leaving dog waste is a health code violation, not an arrestable offense, so in those cases, agents have to let the matter drop."
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green posted for all of us...

And that's not all...
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

Buying guns "privately," as you said is legal in many states. As such, it IS proper.
Plus, even if you buy your gun at a gun store, the ATF is not in the loop. They do not know, nor have any way OF knowing, that you bought a gun (unless they physically visit the store). In those states where the state has to be informed of gun transfers, I don't think the state mentions the fact to the ATF either.
You see, the ATF doesn't need to know, nor even wants to know, about your guns. They will burn you out and kill your children if they merely feel like it or if today is Tuesday.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/5/2011 5:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:

well said
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/declaring-independence-from-police-state-lynchburg /
Satellite recon is being used also to identify new structures and investigate if they got a permit or not. Google Earth is not being used, as the photos there are at least 8 years old.
Steve
Heart surgery pending? www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com Heart Surgery Survival Guide
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places, the code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like to see in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code, don't move there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car up on blocks for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and transmission fluid, with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the front yard, well then, yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.
I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they are professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give the offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct the deficiency.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think we are against code enforcement, but warrant issued for suspicion can easily be abused. I think the codes are good, but I don't want some inspector getting suspicious and obtaining a warrant because my lawn seems too long so he suspects faulty wiring.
This is power than can be easily abused.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

car
I say let them waste their money passing it. They'll just be buying themselves a ticket to a ringside seat at the Supreme Court to watch it struck down. You'd be surprised at how often local legislators who don't know the Constitution from a roll of toilet paper dream up these patently absurd ideas.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Even the FBI can't get a warrant based on "suspicion."
"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 or things to be seized."
The above does not apply to the TSA or the Border Patrol.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or the game warden.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

and
violated,
or
things
The difference being that the TSA, the Border Patrol or the game warden are not likely to be encountered in one's house. There's still a strong presumption in many (but not enough) states that a man's home is his castle. One supposedly must submit to adult diaper searches by the TSA because one wants to board an airplane. Same for BP (crossing the border) or the GW (hunting game on public land - mostly).
But a building inspector entering because I used too much water and he suspects bad plumbing? He's not coming in and if they yank my CO, we're going to rumble in court and on the evening news. It might be a different story if he can see an illegal addition from Google or the street, but I believe there still has to be legally sufficient probable cause to enter a private dwelling, especially by force.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2011 10:43 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Actually at least in my state if the police want a handy way to violate the 4th amendment they bring a "game protector" along. "Game protectors" are sometimes used in roadblock checkpoints for the same reason.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.