Replies

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, 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.

I have to agree completely with your assessment here, and the reason is very simple.

If he was doing an illegal septic system without doing a perk test then he could be putting it right over a split rock face that could allow the raw sewage to go strait down into the water supply of both his and his neighbors. I know this because it happened to us years ago, and they ruined one of our wells.

I really hope if the Conservation Officer here in Indiana decides to inspect his freezer he tries this same argument, as much as I don't think it's fair his butt would be sitting behind bars trying to stop them from doing a search.

...that certain public health dangers or risks exist...

From the video I would surmise that this is the reason for the public official demanding access to the property. Since the official is not wearing a Hazmat suit or any type of protective equipment, does this meet the 'certain public health dangers' requirement? The woman did not appear to be concerned for her health or safety or worried about whatever she might encounter, so wouldn't a warrant or other court order have been desirable in this situation? Public officials can and do abuse thier powers from time to time. Remember BTK.

Furthermore, mindbender, you end your post with the following comment and signature: """ This is not a question so muck of legalities as it is of macho and stupidity. 27 posted on 05/04/2007 12:41:50 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)""" 1. The sign-off commentary you have regarding you and "your CAR-15 in Vietnam" helps me interpret the person who posted the crap you published about the ease with which government should be able to stomp on the constitutional rights of American citizens. First, carrying a weapon meant never having to say you're sorry? To WHOM? And for WHAT? What exactly are you saying here? A combat soldier or Marine doesn't apologize lawfulling performing his assigned duties has no need to apologize,whether he is carrying an automatic weapon or a radio for coordinating artillery or air strikes. So you clearly imply that you in Vietnam you were engaged in illegal activities that your personal firepower prevented you from having to be held accountable? It's people with that attitude that provide the anti-military Left with ammunition (pun intended) in their never-ceasing war (pun intended) on the U.S. military. Second, you charge the property-owner with being macho and stupid for asking for proof of authority (search warrant) and videotaping the incident. Yet, you apparently don't find it macho and stupid to imply that your carrying a high-powered rifle protected you from bearing the consequences of actions that otherwise would require apologies? No constitutional right is absolute. No amendment within the Bill of Rights is 100% impenetrable -- not the first, second, third, fourth, etc. amendments. But the exceptions are few and demand great justification and due process of law. As a Vietnam veteran myself and as a professional still involved with this nation's laws and rights, I resent your attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. combat soldier and marine, and the seriousness of this issue. Don't be so quick to sell our constitutional rights down the hellhole of "progress." With that attitude, some day there may be no FreeRepublic on which you may exercise your first amendment rights to political expression to your fellow citizens.