Is He Right or Wrong???

[Esco!]

OK, so the guy is a kook and he needs to shut the fark up!!

http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=22331

But at the same time he does have a point, we cant have government (or any other type of officials) sniffing around our property at any time they feel like, can we??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or is the "if you got nothing to hide we can snoop around" excuse good enough???????????

 

[ig-88]

Technically, yes, he is right.

LE needs probable cause and a court order, i.e. search warrant. Or your consent to search, and they will sometimes intimidate to get you to consent. For example, in a traffic stop, they can ask for your consent to search your car.

However, there is "exigent circumstances," where they see something immediately apparent that indicates something fishy is going on. For example, blood drops from the trunk of your car.

In this case, they may claim exigent circumstances because what this guy is doing on his land may affect public land or the land of his neighbors. It looks like he's doing some kind of construction work, which may affect wetlands, public utilities, etc.

"Exigent" is debatable though. While the government may claim exigence, a judge may decide that the search (trespass) was illegal, and whatever evidence gained from it is inadmissible.

 

[tboy]

As for what IG says, that is true but obviously he is doing some sort of construction to which (at least in Toronto and probably all of Canada) you need to get a building or construction permit.

For eg: say he decides he wants to run a new weeping system for his septic tank, he would need a permit for that and a building or land use inspector would have a right to enter his property to determine if he was in violation of the buidling code. A prime example of this is the ministy of labour or building inspectors have FULL unrestricted access to all construction sites at any time to determine if they are code compliant and the permits are in order.

 

[Esco!]

Technically, yes, he is right.
However, there is "exigent circumstances," where they see something immediately apparent that indicates something fishy is going on. For example, blood drops from the trunk of your car.

I looked carefully, not much fishy stuff was going on!

So basically noone has any right to come on his property (yes the guy was being uncooperative).

So doesnt that exactly put us back to square one!!!????????????

Which means they had no right to trespass????

 

[tboy]

I looked carefully, not much fishy stuff was going on!

So basically noone has any right to come on his property (yes the guy was being uncooperative).

So doesnt that exactly put us back to square one!!!????????????

Which means they had no right to trespass????

Sorry, but maybe a neighbour complained about the noise caused by the backhoe that he was obviously using and the inspector was there to determine what he was doing.

Just because you own the property doesn't mean that gives you the right to do whatever you want on it.

 

[Esco!]

. A prime example of this is the ministy of labour or building inspectors have FULL unrestricted access to all construction sites at any time to determine if they are code compliant and the permits are in order.

Bullshit Tboy, that was not a construction site to begin with!!


Esco

 

[tboy]

Bullshit Tboy, that was not a construction site to begin with!!


Esco

Bullshit esco, a backhoe, a hole, 2 x 4's a construction trailer, sure looked like a construction site to me!

Put it this way: If you want to build a deck, you buy the lumber, start digging the foundation holes for the posts, a neighbour calls the city, an inspector comes by and asks what you're doing, he has the RIGHT to inspect your property and stop you then and there if you don't have a permit......

 

[Esco!]

Bullshit esco, a backhoe, a hole, 2 x 4's a construction trailer, sure looked like a construction site to me!

Put it this way: If you want to build a deck, you buy the lumber, start digging the foundation holes for the posts, a neighbour calls the city, an inspector comes by and asks what you're doing, he has the RIGHT to inspect your property and stop you then and there if you don't have a permit......

You goddamn filthy fricking Freak!!!!!!!!!!



LOL..........just kidding!!

(oopss.....I've pissed off Tboy)

 

[tboy]

Dick

Actually, we should get rubmeister in on this, he could probably quote you the by-law number, the date it was brought into effect and who wrote the document that was passed into law. Oh, he probably new the guy's wife TOO lol

 

[Esco!]

Dick

Ha ha.........oh shit!!! You mean me.....LOL

 

[Esco!]

Dick

Thats not funny!!!

Actually its quite funny.......LOL....

 

[Esco!]

Asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[osanowo]

the fact that the guys have unlimited access to a construction site does not cancel the fact that it's still his property and he can deny access to it whenever he wants. If so the government officer (or whatever she is) needs a warrant. Moreover, to my knowledge, these guys are not sworn in... and consequently even probable cause would not work.

Last thing, whatever she is, it does not prevent her from saying hi or good day; same thing for the clown in brown.
She is the government and even if she is right her objective is to maintain the image of the government to the eyes of the citizen - and acting like a bitch is not the correct way to do it.

To my opinion, she is wrong by the law and by the "I'm an uptight bitch".

 

[Esco!]

"I'm an uptight bitch".

You damn right you are a Bitch!!

 

[Moraff]

The film was shot in Indiana and if I heard correctly she is a Health Inspector, not a Building Inspector.

I don't know for sure, but I would think that a Health Inspector might have some right to enter onto a property if there is probable cause to belive that there is a health issue. But then again, unless he's brewing up chlorine gas or the like I can't see where taking the time to get a proper warrent would have been a problem.

The problems I have with the government officials on this one are that:

a) she would not state what she was there to look for, just a vague reference to a health issue.

b) Her ID did not have her full name. Now that may be how things are done, but I think if someone wants to come onto my property I should have the right to know their name in case I have reason to complain (or compliment) on their actions.

c) Officer Cooper should have taken a stand one way or the other. I would think that she would have filled him in on why she wanted access to the property. Either she has the right to enter without the property owner's permission or she doesn't. If she does, then Cooper should have stated that too him point blank, not done the old "well if you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't mind" BS. If she doesn't and the guy carries through on his plans to sue then I would think Cooper's career in LE is basically fucked. The fact that he didn't enter the guy's property until he needed to in order to keep the girl in view (for her safety) seems to indicate to me that the guy may actually be more in the right of it than she is. She was saying something about a by-law while the homeowner was talking about a Constitution (state law I believe). I don't think by-laws can override a state law.

Just my thoughts on it.

 

[tboy]

Now I don't know the laws in the U.S. but I have to assume that they are similar to here in the frozen north.

I don't know for sure because I couldn't find it on the toronto/ontario building code website and I'm not going to bother searching the ministry of health site but I have to think that both agencies have the right to enter any property without permission or warrant if they suspect that something is going on that could affect public safety. I know for a fact from talking directly with a building inspector that he has full and unlimited access to any and all construction sites.

Now for a moment think about the health inspector (if that is what she was). Say there is a major health issue like a communicable disease or the like. Stopping the spread of the disease early would be important no? So if they had to get a warrant to search a property or building everytime they suspected a disease may be present or someone is playing with a substance that could cause an outbreak would kind of tie their hands no?

This situation as many online are taken totally out of context and presented in a way that sells the story in a way that the author wants to sell it. Maybe there were extenuating circumstances that happened before and after the video was shot that gave the inspector reason to suspect something hazardous was happening?

One of the things that I find hilarious is that (especially in the US) because one has certain rights, those rights are not all encompassing. For eg: The right to fee speech. Sure, but you CAN'T threaten someone. Well, you can, but you will be arrested for it. Laws supercede certain rights.

Another example is firefighters. If they see a building on fire they have a right to go in and put it out. Even if the owner says "no trespassing".

As for the US constitution, sure it is the background on which the whole US system is based BUT it doesn't supercede the safety of the public in general. THAT supercedes just about all else.

I have to say that with all government agencies the "noticeable evidence of a crime being commited" rule applies (like a cop can't enter your property unless he suspects a crime is being commited). She probably had a complaint from a neighbour or had a history with the homeowner and was there to investigate.

You have to admit, from the video it certainly looked as if something was going on and could easily be seen from the road.

 

[Esco!]

You have to admit, from the video it certainly looked as if something was going on and could easily be seen from the road.

If it were so clear to be "seen from the road" then there was no reason for her to enter the property.

 

[tboy]

If it were so clear to be "seen from the road" then there was no reason for her to enter the property.

LOL dude, everyone in the WORLD could see the twin towers collapse but hey, they STILL had to get up close and personal....sheesh.....

 

[osanowo]

You damn Bitch!!

what??

 

[tboy]

what??

Don't worry, Esco didn't take his meds this week.......

Esco, whatever you do, DON'T listen to those voices, they're NOT real.....(and no, the government hasn't put a tracking device in your rectum)