Explain.
Dramamine
I clicked your link, it told me to ‘get flash’. I don’t want flash can we discuss? :)
My advice?
Hold the camera still.
That is all.
I for one am Stuned!!!
Zot.
If “Law Enforcement” won’t enforce the law, who will?
Thailand?
It is disturbing to see public servants wiping thier a$$e$ with the Contsitution.
That is UNBLIELVABLE!! They guy did the right thing but I can’t say I would have.
I’d love to be able to follow this story.
Thou shall not do your own septic system? I am surprised that the deputy did not sitck with the little lady as she did her inspection, since he didn’t stop her from going on the property. If Indiana law does not grant her the authority to inspect without a warrant, then her evidence would be useless. If it does, then no law was broken. Counterclaim and sue.
Stupid deputy ... “If you have nothing to hide, let her look”
It would depend on what brought the health inspector to the guy’s house. The administrative exception the 4th Amendment might apply to as to why the lady was on the property.
Anything discovered during this illegal search would be ruled inadmissable.
Since this jamoke is not the County Sheriff, merely the deputy, he has no right to allow the trespass. Furthermore the homeowner has the right to bear any arms he may have. The deputy should be fired and the State should get sued.
The property ower sounds like he's hiding something.
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, 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.
In addition, there is no “constitutional” requirement for the woman to identify herself to him other than to present reasonable identification of her status as a person authorized to take action in paragraph three above.
The only identification legal requirement is for the videographer to properly identify himself if requested to do so by the LEO.
In addition, videographer’s claim that he feels his life is in danger illustrates behavior not commensurate with the actions of others shown on the video. He sounds like someone trying to pick a fight.
In addition, videographer seems sober, so he does not have the “drunk defense.” Show that video to the wrong judge and say hello to a Baker Act hearing.
This is not a question so muck of legalities as it is of macho and stupidity.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."