4th Amendment Violation... HERE

[Episcopus]

Can't argue with that. She had a bad attitude.

Isn't it interesting how the law can be written to sound clear cut but there are so many shades of gray in different situations?

One of the most important lessons I took from law school is that it is all gray. The answer to every question was "it depends." Talk about frustrating!

 

[Benny]

I checked this all out when I saw this video a year ago. I even sent it to a lawyer friend in LaPorte County. Turns out that the homeowner did file suit and lost. He lost because the health department does not need a search warrant to check out potential health hazards (like digging up your septic system with a backhoe) and because there wasn't a search, within the legal meaning of "search". The homeowner refused to get a permit, and he refused to allow inspections of his property. He was drainig sewage into a lake in LaPorte County. His property was condemned, if I am remembering everything right.

Now why in the heck didn't you tell us that from the beginning?



And I agree, Mrs. Wolf could have had a much better attitude about the situation.

 

[bwframe]

Now why in the heck didn't you tell us that from the beginning?



And I agree, Mrs. Wolf could have had a much better attitude about the situation.

+1

 

[Episcopus]

Now why in the heck didn't you tell us that from the beginning?



And I agree, Mrs. Wolf could have had a much better attitude about the situation.

Because discussion is interesting and knowing how it turned out would have been a discussion killer, right? Who wants to kill a good discussion? The real reason is because I can't remember the case names that I read that said that you don't have a privacy interest in your property, only in your house, buildings and property immediately surrounding them. I can't remember all of the facts to the outcome, other than the generalities that I posted, so it was safer to hold off and let the discussion unfold.

 

[ryanmercer]

Heh... Well I say the judge was in the wrong then

 

[flagtag]

Because discussion is interesting and knowing how it turned out would have been a discussion killer, right? Who wants to kill a good discussion? The real reason is because I can't remember the case names that I read that said that you don't have a privacy interest in your property, only in your house, buildings and property immediately surrounding them. I can't remember all of the facts to the outcome, other than the generalities that I posted, so it was safer to hold off and let the discussion unfold.

Even if one puts up a very TALL fence?

 

[Episcopus]

Even if one puts up a very TALL fence?

Probably. There are cases where police climbed power poles and saw in a yard and then went in it. Police love using airplanes and helicopters to look in yards. Basically, there is little to no privacy interest in your property because it is so visible to the public, in one way or another. I remember one case where drugs were hidden in a fenced in yard at an apartment complex, and you had to pass through the apartments to get into the yard. There was no privacy interest in that because the yard was accessible to the whole complex, and any of their guests.

In other words, if you want to keep something private, keep it out of your yard.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Julie W definitely could have handled it much better, though.

Well I suppose that is true, but the homeowner was being belligerent and antagonistic from the start. How exactly was she supposed to do her job and get across to him? He wouldn't even shut up when the LEO asked him to, so what could the lady have done to help things any? The homeowner could have gotten his point across in a different manner, but chose not to. I'd say that considering the circumstances, the health inspector was giving back more courtesy than she received.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread Episcopus, it has changed the way people look at their cries of TRESPASS!

 

[bwframe]

Well I suppose that is true, but the homeowner was being belligerent and antagonistic from the start. How exactly was she supposed to do her job and get across to him? He wouldn't even shut up when the LEO asked him to, so what could the lady have done to help things any? The homeowner could have gotten his point across in a different manner, but chose not to. I'd say that considering the circumstances, the health inspector was giving back more courtesy than she received.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread Episcopus, it has changed the way people look at their cries of TRESPASS!

I agree with all of this and I pretty much thought it smelled fishy from the beginning. However, it sure makes you wonder about the other side when that "inspector" doesn't have her full name on her business card. Now that is total BS. That takes a lot of the credibility away from the local gov'ts side of the story.

 

[Episcopus]

I agree with all of this and I pretty much thought it smelled fishy from the beginning. However, it sure makes you wonder about the other side when that "inspector" doesn't have her full name on her business card. Now that is total BS. That takes a lot of the credibility away from the local gov'ts side of the story.

I haven't said before because I haven't been sure how much personal info I want to reveal on a forum, but I work for LaPorte County. Our courthouse security issues ID badges to all county employees, but for some reason they only have our first name and last initial. It has always seemed weird to me, but whatever.

And now there are only about 9 people I can possibly be, if anyone feels like tracking me down.

 

[flagtag]

Well I suppose that is true, but the homeowner was being belligerent and antagonistic from the start. How exactly was she supposed to do her job and get across to him? He wouldn't even shut up when the LEO asked him to, so what could the lady have done to help things any? The homeowner could have gotten his point across in a different manner, but chose not to. I'd say that considering the circumstances, the health inspector was giving back more courtesy than she received.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread Episcopus, it has changed the way people look at their cries of TRESPASS!

She could have done it "by the book" and secured a search warrant before going out there and saved a lot of time and agrivation!
She created her own problems by being lazy. :rolleyesedit:

 

[flagtag]

I haven't said before because I haven't been sure how much personal info I want to reveal on a forum, but I work for LaPorte County. Our courthouse security issues ID badges to all county employees, but for some reason they only have our first name and last initial. It has always seemed weird to me, but whatever.

And now there are only about 9 people I can possibly be, if anyone feels like tracking me down.

I never did like the idea of first names only on ID badges. It gives the wrong impression. (One doesn't have to use the respectful : Mr., Mrs. Ms. So and so) I once worked at a place where we had those badges and the men seemed to think they could get "personal" with me. I quit wearing the badge. And instead of the "babe or honey" type of reference with my first name, they started calling me "maam" - a little more respectful and not so personal.

 

[Yamaha]

With all due respect, thats crazy. On what grounds could he have possibly shot her? I agree she was trespassing, but she posed no threat to his well being or his property. Sure, he didn't like her being there, and she was committing a crime, but thats not grounds to shoot someone. Every time a thread like this comes up I wonder whatever happened to peoples' judgement. You cant just shoot people every time you get pissed. Your gun wont solve all your problems.

exactly, there was none, to defend yourself, the person you defend yourself against had better be armed(fists count), and had better be a threat.......

or else you go to jail, most likely for murder.....