Search warrants for code violations?

[Evan]

Right... And the 4th Amendment only applies to CRIMINAL LAW...

Code violations are more often than not civil infractions and 4th Amendment protections do not apply as far as civil and administrative law violations go -- any enforcement official who has powers of arrest and seizure would need to obtain a warrant to enter any premises they were not invited into by the person lawfully in control of said premises...

Now the gray area is where the code officials bring along police officers as "protection" when they enter a premises involuntarily... Since the police officer is there only as a protector for the code official the police officer is * NOT * allowed to search anything -- but if you leave criminal contraband (or evidence that something illegal was present) then that is in plain view and the officer can place you in custody while a warrant is obtained to further search the premises...

~~ Evan

[George]

Don't need to find an entire animal. A feather (or suspicion of having one) is sufficient cause for a "game protector".

It almost sounds bizarre but using a "game protector" is one of the various ways police do an end run around the 4th Amendment. I know this from very reliable people not a "Heybub".

And if a "game protectors" badge goes to his head they can cause innocent people a lot of grief. There was a guy who worked in our region who was famous for citing someone who say went for a walk in the woods and found a feather and decided to pick it up.

[krw]

Only if you're "suspected of poaching". They they're as happy to search your shorts as is the TSA.

You certainly have a lot of trust in LE types.

Fine. They have a lot more time and money than do you. If you have a mortgage, you'd better have the cash to pay it off in your pocket.

If they want to search your shorts, one can *easily* be fabricated. It doesn't take a judge.

[Evan]

What department or division of your state do these "game protectors" work for ? They sound like environmental cops who should be following the warrant requirement... If they can arrest you for a violation within their legal jurisdiction rather than issuing a civil fine or summons, then they require a warrant... Feathers, animals and what all aside -- someone with powers of arrest when they uncover a violation of the laws (however small that subset might be) he/she is enforcing is a peace/law enforcement officer and is therefore bound by the 4th Amendment protections... If what you are saying is true about the "game protectors" in your state, then some legal loop hole seems to exist because the right test case hasn't come up yet to close it...

~~ Evan

[Tom]

try this one:

"Incident in Indiana where a health inspector trespasses on private property while law enforcement looks on."

Also, it's not generally known that the police can without a warrant enter your property, walk up to the front door and look through any glass in the door or nearby windows along the way. The idea is that if any stranger can do that (such as someone asking for directions), then the police can, too - they don't have inferior rights. But if you have a fence with a gate (presumably locked), then they can't enter.

They cannot without a warrant search the house or the "curtilage", which is the area surrounding the house. So they can't go and look through your back windows or doors.

But they can go up to any structures far from the house, even on your private property. "Open fields" it's called. It's strange stuff, but true.

(All that is aside from probable cause or exigent circumstances.)

They can also put a GPS on your car, even if its in your own driveway... in some appellate jurisdictions but not others. The idea is if they can follow you by sight, they can with a GPS. Naturally, everything gets complicated, for instance they might use a GPS only for a day or two but not indefinitely.

The SCOTUS decides some related cases soon. Naturally, it's usually lowlife criminals at the center of these cases; but then the loss of rights affects us all.

[George]

Is is its own independent bureaucracy organized as a commission (so no oversight) filled with high paid positions with all appointments made by the governor.

And while looking for the above I found this:

[HeyBub]

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.

[Tom]

well said

[Tekkie®]

Robert Green posted for all of us...

>

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®]

Robert Green posted for all of us...

And that's not all...

[Tekkie®]

HeyBub posted for all of us...

Not since the "Patriot Act"

[HeyBub]

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.

[HeyBub]

Search warrants NEVER applied to the Border Patrol. The TSA operates entirely on "voluntary" searches for which no warrant is needed.

[Steve B]

Voluntary, as in, "Sir, you have two choices. I can search you, then you can get on the plane. You can refuse to be searched, and you will not get on the plane. Which is your voluntary choice?"

Steve

[GFretwell]

You skipped a step.

It is Refuse BE ARRESTED and not get on the plane. Once you get inside that TSA security zone, refusing the search is seen as probable cause that you are doing something illegal. It is similar to turning around when you see a DUI checkpoint.

As for the search warrant for code issues. The way it works in Florida is. The code enforcement official sees something from public property or from a neighbor's house with his permission to enter that looks like probable cause to seek a warrant.. (usually the nosy neighbor who called to complain) He then goes to a judge with his "evidence", gets the warrant and shows up with a sheriff deputy. The tip from the judge who taught one of our "law" courses was to go to a civil court judge, since they are less likely to actually understand all the ramifications of probable cause.

In that Lynchburg case it sounds like the CBO actually sued "the house" in civil court. This is an aberration that came out of the drug war, not the patriot act. Cops figured out that they could sue the property of suspected drug dealers (civil forfeiture) without actually having to get a conviction in a criminal court where people have all of those pesky "rights". Property has no rights.

BTW I have never actually seen a building department get a warrant. I can't even imagine doing it for a single family home.

[HeyBub]

Well, yeah. You explicitly possess all manner of constitutional rights. You also have an implicit right, as one judge put it, "... to waive all those rights and take your punishment like a man!"

Aside: The judge was only partly correct. In my state, a criminal defendant may wave any or all constitutional rights except one: The right to a jury trial in a capital case.

[NickySantoro]

If you lived in my town you'd change your tune soon enough. The previous inspector used to hit the local gin mill and brag about busting balls over trivialities. He said he hated homeowners who did their own work because it denied the work to "legitimate" contractors. Mercifully, he dropped dead from a heart attack. If I knew where the AH was buried I'd crap on his grave.