Survivalist Forum banner

4th amendment question

16K views 99 replies 38 participants last post by  felicia 
#1 ·
I post a video in the videos section about the 4th amendament. In it, a public official shows her complete ignorance of the 4th amendament, along with a local Sheriff. It's baffling to watch, see it .

My question is, to what extent are we protected under the law, to forcibly remove a warrant less public official from our property? Including when a clueless LEO idly watches this happen?

I'm not talking about beating that person into the ground/shooting at them, but would you be in the clear using pepper spray on them, or some other non-lethal force, like a high powered water hose? (pressure cleaner).

Sounds dumb, but I'm curious, because that video is downright startling.

I suppose if he did do anything that LEO may have been dumb enough to arrest the guy filming, but taking that out of the equation, where does the law stand on this? (and does it vary state to state?)

thanks

-Svt
 
#49 ·
WSierra, you are a real piece of work, and you are exactly the type of person that gives preppers and survialists the bad rap we have.

I quoted to you Indiana state law which states, in easy to understand language, that the inspector had the rght to inspect the property due to a concern about poisoning the ground water.

She did follow the law...I linked it to you.

Comparing this man (who was breaking the law with his illegal septic system, by the way) to a Jew during Nazi Germany? Really?

Did you really just play that card in a discussion about whether or not some inspector violated search and seizure law in regards to an illegal septic tank?

Whatever.
 
#54 ·
So my question is ?????

The neibors called for an illegal septic that wasnt even done yet but it was already posioning the water? That dont sound right how can it be doing damage before it is used? That must be one heck of a septic? Why could they not avoid the whole issue take pics from a satlite and then fine him. I dont believe they should just walk on our property. If so they might not like the fact that my dogs love having people over for dinner.
 
#55 ·
Seems to me that Miss Do-Good and Deputy Doghnut could have prevented the situation from from getting out of hand by simply using some "people skills" and some situational preparation BEFOREHAND. She could have easily gotten herself killed if the ditch digger was a real wingnut, and if, for example, he followed her onto the property behind the double wide, pulled out .38 and popped her in the back of the head. Deputy Doughnut did not follow her onto the property; the diggers constitutional rant apparently freezing him in his tracks... Doughnut wasn't in any position to cover her back...

Note how Do-Good refused to identify herself beyond her first name and last initial. Why??? If she was well within her rights under Indiana law she should have properly identified herself, listened to the guy rant, and then explained to him why she had the authority to enter the guys property under Indiana law. THEN, if the guy got in the way, Doughnut could have intervened.

If Doughnut wasn't sure how to handle the situation, he should have told Do-Good to stop and wait until a supervisor was called to the scene. Maybe this is what Doughnut was trying to do but Do-good simply decided she wasn't going to wait and went ahead onto the property on her own. Very stupid on her part and stupid on Doughnut's part for allowing her to dictate the situation.

Before she and Doughnut even drove up to the property, they should have met beforehand (at a doughnut shop for example :D:) to go over the situation. She should have pulled Doughnut aside and sized him up. Some cops are intelligent and knowledgeable on law beyond what they learn at the police academy classroom. Some however, are stupid ass*oles and Doughnut appears to be of the latter variety. Do-Good should have explained her prior confrontation to Doughnut, her reason for being there, her authority (without a court order if that is the case here) to enter the guys property. Doesn't appear that she did any of this "legwork" to prepare for the situation.

Appears that neither Do-Good nor Doughnut knew how to handle the situation and she simply thought that bringing Doughnut along as her "muscle" would get the digger to back down and allow her onto the property. Stupid all the way around...
 
#58 ·
One mistake the government worker made was to not invite the homeowner out on the public road or public property to discuss the issue/complaint once he said she couldn't come on his property. Another was to not self-identify right away - she didn't tell him who she was or show ID until after she was on his property. Tacky, and threatening.
 
#59 ·
Found more info: "State of Indiana Vs Robert Trimble, appeal from Jennings Superior Court Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court....... Indiana State Supreme court ruled officer seeing crime / evidence from public that any public citizen could see, investigating a tip of a crime, including parking car in driveway to walk to the home, is allowed to warrantless enter the premises ( yard ) to investigate further. Court further states that officer entry onto private property and their observations do not violate fourth amendment when they have a legitimate investigatory purpose for being on the property limiting their entry to places visitors would be expected to go. Indiana Supreme court decided ruled on this type situation 02-21-2006. Also mentions timely tip from a person and health / safety of others."
 
#60 ·
I am trying to decide just how much troll feeding is appropriate for WSierra. Hmm...slow day at work, so I might as well have at it.

Dear Mr. WSierra,

Are you trying to state, in your own ineffective way, that you think the Indiana law is unconstitutional? If so, you may have a legitimate argument, even though you are incapable of intelligently expressing it.

Can you please describe, with your infinite wisdom, exactly how the inspector broke the law that I quoted to you? Please try to refrain from mentioning the 4th amendment since we are talking about Indiana state law (remember, the Constitution also protects the rights of the states to govern themselves separately from the federal government in the 10th amendment...bet you didn't know that). Also try to avoid using all CAPS for words unless absolutely required.

How exactly did she side-step due process when the Indiana state legislature already gave her the authority to inspect the site on suspicion of an illegal septic tank poisoning the water of an entire neighborhood?

Did you not read the law I quoted, or are you just being thick headed for your own amusement? I admit I am guilty of that myself when I am bored.

PS - I loved the reference to Godwin's Law. I have never heard of it before, so thanks for posting it. It is hilarious how ignorant people will turn to absurd arguments in a desperate attempt to prove their point. When all else fails, play the Race or Nazi card!!
 
#64 ·
This is certainly one of the more interesting threads of late. I would like to know why digging the hole and preparing the field for distribution lines was "illegal" given that it is on private property? I mean unless the guy was already using the system without bothering to install it. So someone says "it's contaminating my well", did anyone bother to ask for proof before the decided there was probable cause to inspect??? Doubt it.

None of this really matters though as apparently in Indiana, the State Legislature already rendered the 4th Amendment meaningless. The state officials basically have the right to ignore concepts of personal property rights any time they like by invoking the "Threat of Disease" and "Pubic Good" cards. This is so broad that state officials can do anything they like, any time they like, and in front of anyone they like.

Lesson for me is that the rights afforded individuals by the US Constitution are finite and clearly subject to being taken away one small state law at a time. This is what really frightens me about broad sweeping laws such as the "Patriot Act". Well intentioned for sure, but I'm left wondering how broadly this law could be interpreted and potentially misused on our own citizens??? Clearly things like that happen, and Ms. Julie Wolfe and Deputy Cooper are perfect example of what it looks like.
 
#68 ·
Do you know all the Laws???

Don't get caught with a tire thumper...

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19514.html

http://forum.freeadvice.com/other-c...ssure-tool-knocker-thumper-weapon-174667.html

http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-55453.html

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/disarm1.5.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/102006/&invol=6610106


If you know all the Federal ,State, and county laws, sure bring em onto your property or let them search your car. Simple fact, they know more laws than you do and you could end up paying some heavy fines or going to jail without realizing you were in violation somehow.

It is no ones business if you have a mini 18" bat for checking tires OR self defense. Sadly, we have so many laws that are invasive and restrictive, they are sure to find you in violation of something.

I have heard repeatedly, if you let police search your vehicle and they tear it apart, they are not required to put it back together.


So, why invite pain and suffering upon yourself???



Sierra Dave
 
#72 ·
Let's say someone has some property up the stream from you. They have various barnyard animals and such. They wash the animal droppings and urine into the creek that runs through both properties and then on down the hill.

Why should you care? It's their property. They have rights, you know.
 
#73 ·
Then I take a water sample and have it tested. If it comes back unsafe, I take the result to the "neighbor" and ask them to help me out and do the right thing. I offer to help. If said neighbor tells me to pi** off, then I take my water sample to the health dept. and ask them for help and expect them to abide by the Constitution and get the appropriate authority to do their job.
 
#78 ·
Keep going what?

In my opinion, if there is proof of a health risk, and the owner is unwilling to accept responsibility, then that "neighbor" should be held to the same level of responsibility as any other property owner.

But at no time should anyone think they have the "right" to enter the man's property, or home or car, or any other private property without a court order. I think it is wrong what happened to this guy. It only happened because of the incremental decay of our rights and assumed expansion of rights on the part of the public officials.

Less than 100 years ago, my grandfather had a farm. I can promise you, if my grand father had been the man standing there saying "Do not come on my land" he would have done so armed and he would have meant it. Right or wrong, if that gal pulled what she did with him, she would have been shot. Done, no more questions.

The law at the time would have frowned on it for sure, but back then property rights were real. My grand father was recognized as a good, law abiding man in his community as his family had for generations. Fact is, this would not have happened then. You cannot really make the comparison because then, people, even health officials had respect. They treated people with respect. People required it. It was a different place, different time.
 
#81 ·
Keep going what?

In my opinion, if there is proof of a health risk, and the owner is unwilling to accept responsibility, then that "neighbor" should be held to the same level of responsibility as any other property owner.

But at no time should anyone think they have the "right" to enter the man's property, or home or car, or any other private property without a court order.
This has been discussed several times back up the thread.

As I am sure you are well aware, the courts only interpret and rule on laws passed by the legislature. The public health inspector is authorized -by law- to pass on to properties to investigate whether there are health code violations that affect the public interest.
 
#90 ·
I think the take-home message of this story is:

1. Buy a mini camcorder and document stuff like this that happens to you.

2. Read your rights in detail so you know the exact limitations of government officials.

3. Be prepared to lay down your life if necessary when the time comes. When the time comes, and you are well informed on your rights, and they are violated by government, stand your ground and accept that you might pay the price for liberty as well.



In this case it sounds like miss do-good was in the right, however that was only established after the search.

Be vigilant.
 
#91 ·
Just from a preparation viewpoint, this can be avoided if you not only post signs, but also obscure your property from public view. I DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy because I maintain woodland trees to prevent view from the road, and to provide canopy to afford privacy from above.
Police/FBI/DEA/DHA helicopters all have IR/thermal imaging now, so foliage is inadequate protection from aerial inspection :)
 
#93 ·
As I stated, I have created a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nobody using reasonable means can disturb my privacy via conventional casual observation from public rights-of-way, thus my expectation of privacy is reasonable.

It is reasonable for a passer-by to casually see what happens on my property from their vantage point on a public thoroughfare or right-of-way. It is reasonable for my property to be subject to casual observation from higher elevations (if there were neighbors at higher elevations), from aircraft, or while descending by parachute or similar device. From these observers, there is no expectation of privacy, because they casually observe whatever crosses their field of vision while in a public space.

But to aerially surveil or reconnoiter is, itself, only questionably within the realm of reasonable means. Upon taking to the skies for the intended purpose of penetrating the privacy measures that I maintain, the line of reasonable casual observation may be crossed. But thwarting those privacy screens with devices whose only purpose is to deprive persons of their privacy is most certainly unconstitutional. Because I have made my property hidden from the unaided eye of casual observers, any attempt to penetrate those privacy screens with anything but the naked eye is unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional.

IR/thermal imaging, optics, cameras strapped to trained animals, remote-controlled vehicles, robots, cops posing as Jehova's Witnesses, audio and/or video bugs planted on the underside of my vehicles while they are in public under the assumption that they will continue to transmit after I am home, fiber optic surveillance via utility conduits, miners/sappers, and anyone purposefully descending onto my property by parachute or other means, are all forbidden to be used to access my property unless a judge has signed a warrant on behalf of a court of competent jurisdiction, and based upon probable cause. And if the alleged crime is so wacky that the police would need to use these extraordinary measures, that cause had better be very probable.
 
#94 ·
Take a U.S. Government class.

Anybody that says that is defending the the woman for having the right to trespass his property is wrong. Yes the man might have been building an illegal septic or sewer tank, but does not grant the woman power to trespass his property. She works for the government and should be following the law no matter what. Indiana state code "IC 16-20-1-23" is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and if anybody of you have ever taken a U.S. Government class you would know that state law cannot interfere with federal law or the constitution. For instance, the right to bear arms is an amendment, yet some states violate the right of the citizen. Same situation here, the woman works for the government so there for needs a warrant to search his property. When the government cannot follow its own laws it becomes corrupt and here is a fine example of corruption.
 
#97 ·
This whole thing reminds of aof a fu years back when I worked for a landlord.
He would just unlock his tenents door and go in and look thru their stuff with them not home.He asked me to do it one day I said hell no I am not he said I own it I have the right . I said will you just go a head I will stand out here I not walking it there. I said it their place and their stuff . He said but I have the right to inspect it any time I want and if that means going thru their stuff I can .One day the tenents came while he was there looking . i was setting about 20 ft from their door he was inside going thru their cabnets and stuff they all got in a fight. They called the law they sent up a barnney like was stated before . He told themthe landlord owns it he has the right I said dude NO he dosent any way he arested the tenents for hitting the landloard. They sued, he it cost him big time some thing like 60,000 in damages for invaion of privey and assalt .The officer got 4 week off work Some people think they can do what they want and they need to learn the law.
 
#98 ·
I post a video in the videos section about the 4th amendament. In it, a public official shows her complete ignorance of the 4th amendament, along with a local Sheriff. It's baffling to watch, see it here.

My question is, to what extent are we protected under the law, to forcibly remove a warrant less public official from our property? Including when a clueless LEO idly watches this happen?

I'm not talking about beating that person into the ground/shooting at them, but would you be in the clear using pepper spray on them, or some other non-lethal force, like a high powered water hose? (pressure cleaner).

Sounds dumb, but I'm curious, because that video is downright startling.

I suppose if he did do anything that LEO may have been dumb enough to arrest the guy filming, but taking that out of the equation, where does the law stand on this? (and does it vary state to state?)

thanks

-Svt
Given the propensity for law enforcement to destroy evidence of their impropriety when they are aware of it, you'll want to do that filming secretly. Of course, many states have now made it a put-your-ass-in-prison-felony to videotape a police officer, even if he is in your home. So, there's that.

Indiana at the very least has also made it clear in a state supreme court decision that you have no right to prevent a police officer from entering your home illegally. Your only real recourse is to file a civil case after the fact, and hope you get some justice there. Beyond that I would defend myself from bodily harm but would take no offensive action. If it was a "civilian" it would be a good shoot, but if he's wearing a badge you might go to prison instead.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top