Is a Bldg inspector a policeman?

[Karma Ghia]

Can anything you say be used against you? If so, why don't they advise you of your rights? the 5th amendment.

[Kurt Ullman]

To greatly oversimplify things, inspectors don't enforce criminal laws but mainly rules and regulations. To greatly oversimplify things even further, criminal laws are usually those where they can deprive you of liberty... ie send your scrawny butt to jail. Inspectors usually can stop construction and do other things to make your life miserable, but can't send you to jail for not having the proper rated fire doors. Even when they could you send you to jail (when you get frustrated and take a swing at them-grin), they will need to get a cop. They can't do that on their own...

So, the 5th amendment doesn't apply here.

[Bert Byfield]

They only have to advise you of your rights if they are arresting you.

[Ralph Mowery]

You don't say anything to the building inspectors. It is their job to inspect the building. If they do ask you anything about the building you simply play dumb and answer that you don't know .

[Me]

They are Aholes.

[Thomas Horne]

The answer to your question varies a lot from place to place. Most building inspectors cannot exercise the power of arrest except for that available to any citizen. In a way that can make them more dangerous to you because the Miranda decision may not apply to the questions that they ask.

-- Tom Horne

[mm]

Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think you did it, you're not a "suspect".

[jJim McLaughlin]

You are a dumb f*ck, aren't you.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

[jJim McLaughlin]

You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"

.

[Cheri]

Did I see you on COPS? Were you the one using the nightstick on the petty thief? :-)

Cheri

[Steve Barker]

what's wrong with that?

[Art]

In NC, theoretically violating building codes is breaking the law.

[Cheri]

Nothing. I think a cane would have worked just as well. ;-)

Cheri

[gfretwell]

Building code violations are generally civil court actions. You sign a contract with the state when you get a building permit that allows them to inspect. You also give the state the right to enforce the building code. If you do not have a permit it is actually another law that comes into effect and in a lot of places you will find a different group of people are enforcing it. Those are usually the same guys who enforce zoning law, grass to tall, junk cars in the yard, farm animals, set backs, non conformoing structures etc.

BTW the right you do have until you sign it away with a permit is your

4th amendment right. You can refuse entry unless they have a warrant. The problem with that is a civil court judge is a lot more likely to issue one on shaky grounds since he only deals with the "preponderance of evidence" all day instead of "without a doubt" like they do in criminal court. Think OJ. Of course anything they can see from public property, a willing neighbor's property, a helicopter or a satellite is fair game. These "code enforcement" inspectors generally work off complaints from a pissed off neighbor.

Most inspectors are reasonable people unless you live in one of those mobbed up northern cities where they expect envelopes full of cash.. The certifications, licences and uniform building codes have gone a long way to stop the patronage and nepotism that used to permieate building departments so it isn't going to be the mayors idiot nephew as a general rule. Of course YMMV

Bear in mind a lot of communities use the building department for "growth management". They don't want it to be easy to build. That is a political decision, not a building department one. You fix that at election time.

[HeyBub]

There's a lot of misinformation about the Miranda warning and I see you're doing your part to spread it.

Cops never HAVE to give a Miranda warning. The only consequence of not giving a Miranda warning is that anything the subject says cannot be used against him. This prohibitioni also includes the "fruit of the posioned tree" concept. If an un-Mirandized suspect tells the cops where the gun is hidden, the gun cannot be used against the suspect either (in most cases - if the gun would have been found anyway, the gun can be used).

Further, only government employees are burdened by having to give the Miranda warning. Non-cops, if they ask and learn something from the suspect, can repeat what they heard to the authorities. These "non-cops" include medical workers at a hospital, by-standers at the crime scene, or even other criminals.

As to "suspect," the OP was correct. If the focus of an investigation converges on a single individual AND if the cops intend to use anything said by this single individual, they MUST Mirandize the "suspect" before asking him anything new.

[Oren]

Authorities do not Mirandize during wire taps and covert recordings.

After the Miranda decision, Mr Miranda was later arrested again and given his Miranda Rights by the arresting Officer.

-- Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes."

[mm]

No, in this context, they are related. If you want me to read some part of Miranda post the url and tell me what paragraph(s).

Otherwise, take some Pepto-Bismal. Then read Bub's post.

[zxcvbob]

Does he carry a gun? How about handcuffs?

Bob

[jJim McLaughlin]

Not my job to do your homework sonny.

Dub's post is as stupid as Dub.

Having spent more than 25 years practicing criminal law in federal courts, I know a lot moore about the subject than Dud.

Or you.

[jJim McLaughlin]

Dud, I spent more than 25 years actively practiing ctriminal law in federal courts. I never noticed you there.

I have some exeriece with the subject.

You, obviously, don't.

You have no idea what no what you are talking aout.