Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Video of police entering private property. Was this man within his...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:53 AM
Original message
Video of police entering private property. Was this man within his...
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 12:59 AM by Kingshakabobo
....rights to refuse entry to police AND a health inspector? Were his rights violated? Did the health inspector need a warrant? Any attorneys want to chime in?

Clearly that cop had NO idea what he was talking about and the inspector was completely un-professional. I've been trying to Google for news stories but have had no luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

Edit to add: It's pretty clear she is on a fishing expedition. If she DOES have reason to believe he is in violation of some codes wouldn't she need to show probable cause to obtain a warrant once the property owner refuses entry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wasn't a law passed a few minutes ago that eliminates the knocking order?
Meaning police CAN barge in rather than announcing "Police!" and giving the person time to get dressed, escape, or whatever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I believe it had to do with admissible evidence.
If the cops don't announce themselves, the evidence obtained *is* admissible, whereas it used to be thrown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alacrat Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think no knock entries are now legal but,
LEOs still need a warrant. I'm no lawyer, but I work closely with LE. They need a warrant, or a reasonable belief a crime is being committed inside your home before they enter. I would imagine health inspectors would always need a warrant, unless it is a public building ie.a business. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. LE was required to announce their intentions previously, before they kicked a door, but didn't always do it. I think they said it gave criminals to much of a warning, and allowed time for ambushes, or the destruction of evidence, as reason for the no knock entries, and the Supreme court agreed. Once again I'm not 100% on this, so someone chime in, and I know they will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I don't get the whole knock versus no-knock issue........
........since the knock usually consists of one tap on the door and a shout while they are bashing the door in with a sledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alacrat Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Knock and announce
I helped with a SWAT class about 10 years ago. I was playing a bad guy, it was a fun day, a little rough and tumble though. I remember them saying they had to announce "Police dept. search warrant" before entering. They made a point of saying they could say that as they were leaving the vehicle, they weren't required to wait on a response. They were in compliance as too announcing, but basically were doing no knock entries. I don't see the difference, either way they are coming in, and coming in fast, whether they knock or not. I had a lot of bumps scrapes and bruises after playing with them, the real thing would be a lot worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. SCOTUS ruling from June, I think it was.
The 'knock and announce rule', with 'reasonable' time between knocking/announcing and entering wasn't reduced as a rule. The rule stands, rooted in common law. The former penalty was removed (the 'former penalty' was officially certified by SCOTUS only in the '90s, apparently, having worked its way up the court hierarchy and gaining more and more official status as time went on): it used to be that evidence obtained with a warrant but insufficient knock/announce/wait was tossed out. This was deemed an excessive penalty.

So the evidence is usable if the police merely announced--with something like a 3 second wait.

The penalties were passed to the enforcement of police dept. and city policies, and civil suits.

One can argue that de facto the rule's tossed, but retained de jure. Depends on what dept. and city policies are and how they're enforced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. Here is an interesting thread from a google board on the incident:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks. I didn't get much out of it though....... Mostly speculation.
I would really love to see if there was a court case on this yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
7. based on my police experience
disclaimer: i am not familiar with indiana state law/constitution

UNLESS there was some sort of exigency (which i don't any evidence of), this health inspector blatantly violated this guys rights

it is true that she did not enter his residence, just his curtilage. he has diminished expectation of privacy vis a vis his curtilage and outlying areas, than he would inside his dwelling. but he still has property rights and he can refuse the inspector entry.

the property owner did everything right.

most entries police (and LEO's) make to private property and residence falls under exceptions to a warrant requirement. like when somebody calls 911 to report a dv crime in progress. or when they are invited in. or when they are investigating a crime in progress (with certain exceptions etc).

but at least it APPEARS that this inspector is entering the property merely to "inspect". \

she would definitely have the right to do that in a private BUSINESS (like liquor inspectors, health inspectors do) that serves the public etc.

but not a private residence.

not imo, not w.o a warrant OR exigency.

i see no evidence of exigency. it could exist based on facts known to her, but if it doesn't, i'd love to know where she thinks she gets the authority.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Maybe the "Unitary Executive" gave the authority to disregard the Constitu
We now live under "Unitary Executive" and no longer the Constitution..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. "If you have nothing to hide" now replaces law
I think the whole country has been infected by the Bush policy of surveillance. There are more cases of police brutality and entering without a warrant than ever before. And they all have the same excuse for their law-breaking "You shouldn't be worried about it if you have nothing to hide".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. that's actually a common
and not illegal tactic that police can and do use to gain CONSENT to enter and/or search

but the person of course still has the right to say NO

based on my reading of this incident (iow, the facts presented in the video), there was no lawful reason that authorized NON-consensual entry, even to curtilage

other facts may have authorized it, but they are not evident in the video

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. THAT drives me frickin nuts! Most cops are pretty slick at...
.....talking people in to giving up their rights(self incrimination, searches etc.) but that cop was a dolt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alacrat Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. You are right
The local Police Chief said on tv after a few large pot busts on the interstates, " I don't understand people, their car is loaded down with dope, but they still give us permission to search, don't they know they can deny us". Everyone knows if you tell an officer no, he will call a k-9 unit, they will walk the dog around your car, if the dog hits on something, they have probable cause, if the dog doesn't, they will find another way. They would never just let you go if you said no, so in essence, they can and will search you whenever they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. actually in my state,
that is not true, since you cannot call a k9 to do a sniff merely because a person refuses a consent search


and i've let dozens of people who have refused consent searches go. so, i can empirically state that you are incorrect on that

depending on whether i have terry factors or PC, the person may be detained further...

but again, since i have released EASILY dozens of people who refused consent searches, i call bogus on yer statement


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alacrat Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Bogus?
You may have let some people go, but saying my statements are bogus, is absolutely untrue. Any LEO with an imagination can find pc, and you know that is a fact. The poster above me stated LEOs are slick, and they are, I speak to them daily, and I hear story after story, on how they "found" pc to affect a search. I don't know how many innocent people are searched and released, you only hear of the people who are guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. i get the impression
that cop wanted to be ANYWHERE but at that location. i bet anything he was assigned to provide "backup" for this statist inspector and wanted no part of this thang

also, note that he did not accompnay her on her little field trip.

i don't think he wanted the liability of getting dragged into it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Thank you for that perspective! n/t
PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. The inspector was an a fishing expedition
based on the fact she was taking pictures of the man's property. If she had "real" health concerns she would have gotten a warrant as to make sure she had access to inspect for any violations

I would have a lawyer put an injunction on those pictures ASAP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. i'd go much farther
i am not a "sue the bastards" type of person
i think many lawsuits are frivolous

this one, imo, would not. i'd sue the health dept. or whatever agency this woman worked for. assuming again, that there was not some sort of exigency or other validation for the property inspection that i am not aware of via the video

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
14. They're both lucky
he didn't shoot them both for trespassing!!! I hope he sues the pants off them both and wins!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
15. No warrant, no entry onto the property
They could get consent, but if they don't get that, they have to get a warrant.

There's an emergency sort of exception to the warrant requirement - the evidence is about to be destroyed, that sort of thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. correct
it's called "exigency". which is lawyer speak for "emergency"

there are also several other exceptions but in general you are correct.

if he denies entry - get a warrant

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. since when is a "health inspector" concerned about private property?
It's not a business when public health is a concern. If there is a grading issue or an improper waste release--like raw sewage running onto the ground--that would be a building code issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. She might have been a building inspector. I think it was the homeowner..
...who called her a health inspector. Either way, maybe she was concerned about his well as that's what she asked about. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. She pretty much
Admitted that her visit was caused by a phone tip from a disgruntled neighbor.

She didn't advise him of what she was looking for, the specifics of the complaint, and acted as if she were his master. I'm hoping criminal charges were filed against her for her outrageous behavior and I also hope she is dismissed and barred from ever holding another government job for her attitude alone.

If you noticed....the Sheriff's deputy never entered the property because he knew it was illegal without a warrant. He screwed up though by not arresting her when she entered the property. He saw a clear violation of the law and refused to act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yep,
these posts from the video page shed more light on the circumstances.

owner of property:
You state the property is filthy, , but what makes you think it wasn't being cleaned up? Do you know how long I had owned it? Einstein stated, " Condemnation without Investigation is the height of Ignorance." NO! The problem with this country is people like you, not me; who really don't know squat. I don't blame my faults on government, but blame your faults on it big time. You are the product of the new dumbed down sheeple. Just make sure FOX and CNN keep filling your brain with trash.

Owner's friend: Mustang, I know this guy, he bought a dump and he is cleaning it up. Jealous neighbor lowballed $ the property and didn't get it. Pissed neighbor calls Health Inspector...get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. first of all
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:31 AM by sgxnk
there is no way that cop (or i) in that situation would have arrested her.

let the guy sue. that's the redress. if she forced entry into the HOME, yes. but not curtilage.

assuming she is a LEO, which most inspectors are, she has transactional immunity, and i highly doubt CRIMINAL charges would get filed assuming what she did was in fact wrong

civil redress is another story entirely



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
28. From what I can see in the video...
he should sue the shit out of her and win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC