Posted on 05/04/2007 12:11:48 PM PDT by bad company
LOL!
But the government is still the government. It sounds like they are just playing a shell game with the constitution.
In addition, civil can progress to criminal, as in a customs border inspection or driver’s license check becoming a DWI arrest.
This reinforces that assumption. They are playing civil litigant under colour of authority when it suits them, but changing the shell when they need the criminal side.
This has been settled law for 200+ years.
It is simply this layman’s mistaken belief that the Constitution provided freedoms and guarantees that it does not.
The protections of the Constutution are not limitless or necessarily what everyone wants them to be. They guarantee certains rights and liberties, but not what this man wanted.
So what we have is that the guy that makes sure that my hedges are not more than four feet tall has more latitude to accomplish his job than the FBI agent has to protect me from terrorists.
Call Monticello 4-4000 to complain...
I am absolutely astounded at the level of arrogance I see in this thread.
For those of you touting that civil investigators are exempt from constitutional protections associated with search and seizure, you’re way oversstating the case.
For the NY guy who said that criminal investigators take conservation officers along to get entry where they otherwise would be denied....I’d love to take that case.
You CANNOT use that as what is known legally as a “pretext” to circumnavigate constitutional protections. Those LE officers and the COs involved would be torn to shreds on crossexamination. They would be asked, under oath, if they discussed or had other reason to believe that the CO participation was to grant LE entry to private property. Was there a probable cause for the CO even to be there? If not, then it is a pretext.
Did the LEOs and COs discuss this beforehand? If not, did the LEOs discuss it internally before acquiring a CO? If there was not actual discussion, was it “understood” this is why it was being done based on the totality of circumstances or prior incidences of the same type (using COs or other civil officials as a spearpoint to gain entry).
Then you get into criminal conspiracy by LE officers to violate federal civil rights.
I would LOVE to take a case as a defense attorney in which this is done. In fact, if such a pattern exists in some state or local jurisdiction, post the info right here. I love slamdunk class action lawsuits.
Absolute ignorance . . . . God help us all.
Ok, you’ve sold out your property rights on a septic tank and you would allow any harelip government employee on yours and anybody else’s land. This is a civil case and it appears there is no immediate threat of danger so why shouldn’t the government be required to get a search warrant to inspect something if the property owner requests it?
For those of you touting that civil investigators are exempt from constitutional protections associated with search and seizure, you’re way oversstating the case.
There were some Family Services types in OH who got slapped down pretty hard by SCOTUS for this kind of 'we don't need no stinking warrant' crap.
Then you get into criminal conspiracy by LE officers to violate federal civil rights.
18 USC 242. I'd love to see someone actually be prosecuted under this Statute.
L
Ever hear of 'officials' [including 'officers of the court'] exaggerating their powers, mindbender?
-- Too bad we don't, imho:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, big mouthed attorneys, etc., - persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Me three. -- Law 'officials' that abuse their powers are the scum of the earth.
"Sec; 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law" reads as follows
(the bolding is mine)
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
First, this only applies to "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" and it is well established that there is no Constitutional or statutorily requirement to have a search warrant for government officials to enter private property under a number of circumstances, including those in this case, 18 USC 242 clearly does not apply in this case.
Secondly, this stature in question requires denial of rights "on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race," to be applicable, and this is clearly not the case here, again your point is inappropriate and inapplicable.
Constitutional law is not a game to be played on Amateur Night.
Ever since the exclusionary days of the 1970s, it takes very little to get the camels nose under the side of the tent.
Also remember, for better or worse, we are dealing with courts that are giving much more credence of “excited utterances,” “evidence that would have eventually been discovered” and “honest minor mistakes” by LEOs.
#2, My comment about “never having to say you are sorry” is a pun on the line form the movie “Love Story.” If you are so uptight you didn’t understand it, sorry ‘bout that. REMF?
#3, Your continued insistence at defending the “constitutional rights” of the idiot with the camera, when we have demonstrated that no such Constitutional right existed, and by the way, the SD on this goes back to Washington, Hamilton and the Whiskey Rebellion days, it only fuels the armamentum of those who see us all as fools.
#4, Paragraphs are our friends.
“There is no constitutional right to prevent entry of certain government officials, nor is there a requirement in every case to have a warrant.
The homeowner is trying to be his own lawyer, and he is legally wrong. Period. Assuming the woman was there to investigate a health hazard (she was there from the health department), a warrant was most probably not needed.
Warrantless entry is permitted in many cases. Some examples are reasonable belief that certain crimes are being committed. that flight from some categories of crime might occur, that certain evidence may be damaged or destroyed, that certain public health dangers or risks exist, that game animals taken illegally are present, that child abuse or other activities are present. that certain categories of fugitives are present, certain Customs or Postal violations have occurred, and a number of other conditions.
It appears there was no illegal trespass here. Ergo all protests are moot as fruits of a tainted tree.”
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ARE VERY POWERFUL, BUT THEY ARE LIMITED TO THOSE AREAS THEY COVER, AND ONLY THOSE AREAS. They are not nearly as widespread as many believe.
Don’t like it? Call Mr. Jefferson at MOnticello 4-4000 and complain.
1. Spoken like a true anonymous internet type. Everyone is tough online.
2. I know exactly where the “never means having to say your sorry” line originated. Even though I never watched the movie. But that wasn’t my point. My point had to do with connecting that sentiment to using or bearing high-powerered weaponry. One thing I learned in the military is that legitimately tough guys don’t talk tough because they don’t need to. They’re REAL men. Secure and mature. As for me being a “REMF,” you have no idea how or where I served during my Army career. I will only say I enlisted as a private, became an NCO, and then a commissioned officer. And among the things I learned moving through the ranks is that the guys who throw the REMF slur around are usually the REMFs or PX heroes themselves. Stop giving vets a bad name and stop feeding the anti-military Left propaganda machine.
3. As for defending the “idiot with the camera,” I have no idea if the guy was cooking meth on his property or was completely innocent. If you’ll actually read what I typed, you’ll see I was not defending him. Why don’t you read up on 225+ years of constitutional jurisprudence and learn just how the US Supreme Court has treated that amendment on a case by case, concept by concept basis.
Yada, Yada, Yada.
BIOYAC
>>>2. I know exactly where the “never means having to say your sorry” line originated. Even though I never watched the movie. But that wasn’t my point. My point had to do with connecting that sentiment to using or bearing high-powerered weaponry. One thing I learned in the military is that legitimately tough guys don’t talk tough because they don’t need to. They’re REAL men. Secure and mature. As for me being a “REMF,” you have no idea how or where I served during my Army career. I will only say I enlisted as a private, became an NCO, and then a commissioned officer. And among the things I learned moving through the ranks is that the guys who throw the REMF slur around are usually the REMFs or PX heroes themselves. Stop giving vets a bad name and stop feeding the anti-military Left propaganda machine.
>>>I came on active duty as a Private too, made E-6 acting E-7 in 14 months in RVN 11B3P, (4th PsyWar Bn Road Runners) returned to CONUS, attended OCS and went back to SEA (11ACR, 4th PsyWar Bn Road Runners and MACV) as an 1193 and after being chopped up, a 5505. As far as mentioning a rifle by name in the same sentence as an “Al and Tipper Gore movie” “giving vets a bad name”, you had better cover your ears, get the kids out the room, and turn on your tape recorder.
“Bloop Tube.”
“Beehive”
“xm177e2”
“Grease Gun”
and the ever so profane (I’m whispering now...) “.45!... or if I’m speaking to the far-far-far left in my secret meetings with them at the Skull and Bones secret meeting room at the secret location at Yale.. “Forty Five Caliber, Magazine Fed Colt Semi-Automatic Pistol, Model 1911A1”” (That last phrase is so sinful and anti social many people rank it up with the N word!
>>>3. As for defending the “idiot with the camera,” I have no idea if the guy was cooking meth on his property or was completely innocent. If you’ll actually read what I typed, you’ll see I was not defending him. Why don’t you read up on 225+ years of constitutional jurisprudence and learn just how the US Supreme Court has treated that amendment on a case by case, concept by concept basis.
If you had any legal training, you would know that there is no guilt or innocence issues, because he has not been charged with a crime. Guilt or innocence are issues involving crimes only, not civil matters.
I’ll be glad to do your legal research for you. I’m semi-retired, but for you, I’ll cut my prices. $850.00 an hour, VISA, MasterCard or Amex accepted, or I’ll take your check.
As far as the naming a rifle being stretched to “feeding the anti-military Left propaganda machine” and the rest of this BS,,,,, get a life.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, big mouthed attorneys, etc., - persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Sorry, but as usual, with all respects, you have it wrong:
Mindbender, according to you, everyone is wrong about anything you declare yourself to be an expert on.
First, this only applies to "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" and it is well established that there is no Constitutional or statutorily requirement to have a search warrant for government officials to enter private property under a number of circumstances, including those in this case, 18 USC 242 clearly does not apply in this case.
So you claim, - but this is being disputed by others here, -- others whom I find more credible that you. - Sorry bout that.
Secondly, this stature in question requires denial of rights "on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race," to be applicable, and this is clearly not the case here, again your point is inappropriate and inapplicable.
You're nitpicking the statute's intent. It clearly defends "-- any person --", not just persons "being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,"
Constitutional law is not a game to be played on Amateur Night.
I'm not playing a game, and you're the one acting like an amateur, -- as has been noted by others.
Secondly, you fail completely to understand that Constitutional protections are exactly that, protections that are included in the Constitution or have been included in expansionist moves by the courts, such as Freedom of the Press becoming Freedom of all media, including Radio, TV, etc.... AND THAT'S ALL. They are not what you and the guys at Herb's Bar, Grille and Barber Shop think they are.
Finally, you do not understand that there are no Constitutional protections against all “incursions” or “searches,” but stick to some totally incorrect legal belief that they are.
If you have any complaints and/or you want the Constitution to ban all warrantless searches, then close all Customs posts, tell police officers to go get a warrant when they hear a woman screaming "rape" from behind a closed apartment door, get rid of all food processing inspections, let anyone carry any weapon on any aircraft, and if the Virginia Tech shooter kills 20 people, then ducks into his residence to reload, leave him alone while you go get a judge to sign a warrant. etc, etc, etc.
To get those constitutional changes made, call Mr. T. Jefferson at MOnticello 4-4000. He can propose the changes for you.
Ergo, end of discussion with you. I explained it twice. "There are no so blind as those who will not see."
End of discussion with you.
“Off with their heads!"
>>>This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
Acts.
That is exactly what the statute does NOT say. You are talking about something covered in the first two weeks of ConLaw101!
Reread post #52. Read is sloooooowly.
Reread the statute, then reread your interpretation of it, and if you still agree with your interpretation, go back to English 101, not ConLaw101! P.P.S, I don't go down to the Whattaburger and argue with the was you make the burgers. Please do not argue law with me. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.