Sheriff Allows Illegal Trespass

Break.com ^ | Unstated | Indiana Citizen

[Copernicus]

Some dumb Indiana Sheriff sits back and does absolutely nothing while an even dumber health inspector trespasses on private property without a warrant. I hope both these people got fired because this guy couldnt be more correct about his constitutional rights to privacy. Smart of him to get it all on film.

[Copernicus]

This is the type of frontline battle you will never see on the evening news.

If they are so sure a crime is in progress, let them swear out a warrant before a judge.

Best regards to all,

[lndrvr1972]

Hate to tell you Sheriff when you were sworn in you took a pledge to honor the constitution of the US. Its an oath given to people who are applying for citizenship.

[VanShuyten]

Health inspectors are not required in many places to get warrants for inspections, just as they don't need warrants to quarantine people or places.

[untrained skeptic]

It's bad enough that the Sheriff doesn't realize that he needs a warrant and tries to bluster his way onto the property even after being told to stay out.

I just find it amazing that he isn't even bright enough to call the county's legal counsel or the prosecutor's office, or someone that should know the law, especially consider that the guy is recording them.

It even appears that the Sheriff is there because the health inspector asked for his presence after being told to leave the day before.

[JLS]

When I see guys like that I wonder why one would ever vote on a jury to convict any accused based on evidence offerred by a police officer? They seen either untrained or inclined to break the law?

[barker]

So what was the outcome of this? Film was evidently taken during the winter. No leaves on the trees and “lady” was wearing a coat.

[untrained skeptic]

When I see guys like that I wonder why one would ever vote on a jury to convict any accused based on evidence offered by a police officer? They seen either untrained or inclined to break the law?

Like any section of humanity, some of them suffer from stupidity or ignorance. Of course those are the ones that tend to get their stupidity captured on video for all to see.

I used to shoot at a shooting range that was owned and run by current and retired police officers. I also have a couple closer friends in law enforcement. They are amazed as we are at some of the stupid things that fellow officers sometimes do, but the vast majority are not this stupid and are generally respectful of people's rights.

[icwhatudo]

Right of entry - 410 IAC 6-10-4

Sec. 4. The board, the local health department, or their authorized representatives may enter upon public or private property at reasonable times and upon presentation of credentials to inspect facilities, equipment, or records, investigate allegations, determine soil characteristics, conduct tests, or collect samples for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to the issuance of a permit pursuant to 410 IAC 6-10 [this rule], or to determine whether any person is subject to, or in violation of 410 IAC 6-10 [this rule] or any permit or order issued pursuant thereto.

http://www.in.gov/isdh/regsvcs/saneng/laws_rules/410_iac6_10.htm#D

[rockrr]

Good catch.

What sucks is how close he came to p!ssing that cop off and getting himself thrown in the hoosegow. The b-otch has reason to fear the public - she brings it down on herself.

[Copernicus]

So what was the outcome of this? Film was evidently taken during the winter. No leaves on the trees and “lady” was wearing a coat.

I am curious myself. At the beginning of the tape he refers to November 22, which I could assume was last year. The fact the tape is posted suggests the wheels of bureaucracy have ground their result exceedingly fine.

Best regards,

[Copernicus]

Right of entry - 410 IAC 6-10-4 Sec. 4. The board, the local health department, or their authorized representatives may enter upon public or private property at reasonable times and upon presentation of credentials to inspect facilities, equipment, or records, investigate allegations, determine soil characteristics, conduct tests, or collect samples for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to the issuance of a permit pursuant to 410 IAC 6-10 [this rule], or to determine whether any person is subject to, or in violation of 410 IAC 6-10 [this rule] or any permit or order issued pursuant thereto.

Whew! Overly broad and vague. From the tape you could make the case the Inspector did not properly present credentials nor cite any statute or authority for her action. "Julie W"? Really.

I might remind you the BTK killer was a "code compliance" enforcement agent who literally measured the height of suburban lawns to ensure they did not exceed the regulated height.

Best regards,

[PizzaDriver]

“We, the Government”

VS

“We, the People”.

Which will your kids vote for?
Which is your School District pushing?

[ozzymandus]

What the hell does she want? Is he running a restaurant? Is he putting in aseptic tank? Not nearly enough info.

[Drammach]

Indiana State Health Inspector law. IC 16-20-1-23.
A health officer, upon hearing of the existence of such unlawful conditions within the officer's jurisdiction, shall order the abatement of those conditions. The order must:
(1) be in writing if demanded;
(2) specify the conditions that may transmit disease; and
(3) name the shortest reasonable time for abatement.
In writing, as opposed to "Hey I'm here."

But what if a person denies entry...

Indiana State Health Inspector law. IC 16-20-1-23. c)
If a person refuses or neglects to obey an order issued under this section, the attorney representing the county of the health jurisdiction where the offense occurs shall, upon receiving the information from the health officer, institute proceedings in the courts for enforcement. An order may be enforced by injunction. If the action concerning public health is a criminal offense, a law enforcement authority with jurisdiction over the place where the offense occurred shall be notified.

[raisincane]

We are in need of a new septic system. The health officer took a short look, looked at the soil report results and determined that we need the expensive above ground system. Our septic contractors say we can use the conventional system just fine. But, the health inspector isn’t about to change her mind. She’s got the power and she knows it. Estimates so far are $25,000 and that does not include removing trees.

[reformedliberal]

That is high!

We had to replace our old gravity system in 2001 when the drain field failed. We also were mandated to have a mound system. Because my business uses a lot of water, we opted for a system about half again as large as the one we were replacing: 1300 gallons.

I was skeptical and worried that it might fail, but it is just about perfect. The total costs were $6,000,including the bulldozing of several box elders and the remains of an old shed, but our state has a fund to reimburse people who had a drain field failure and a sanitarian’s order for a mound. The sanitarian just appeared one day to inspect my drain field. It was still functioning, but I had some standing water and the plant life on the drain field indicated poor drainage. The contractors thought we could redo the old gravity system, too, but the Sanitarian rules in these cases. It took over a year to get anything back and the way the fund works is first come, first served out of a fixed amount, so we only received a 50% reimbursement, which was still welcomed.

My business produces a load of screen-clogging lint, so I have installed a two-stage screening filter on the outflow of my washer and the laundry sink drain. We get pumped every three years (this is monitored by the Sanitarian, since we received State funds)and the pumper, who is well aware of the potential problems my waste water could cause the system, has been impressed with the continuing good condition of the screen and the pump. When we had -35 degrees this winter, the water tank of the system froze. This set off the alarm and when the plumbers came out, they first hung a small heater inside the tank to thaw it and then switched the caps so the vented cap is not on the water tank (hope this all makes some sense: there is a tank for waste and a pump which moves the water out into another tank and then up into the drain field. There is a screen between the two tanks.). We were fine after that and remain so. We do have to keep the drain field mowed.

You may want to look into your State’s provisions for systems that are mandated by the Sanitarian. There may be some relief available. You will have to pay upfront, and wait, even if there is a reimbursement fund. It was part of the rural clean water legislation, IIRC.

[archy]

Some dumb Indiana Sheriff sits back and does absolutely nothing while an even dumber health inspector trespasses on private property without a warrant.

Not a terrible problem: Indiana has both a VERY strong *Official Misconduct* statute that makes illegal or unconstitutional activity by a poublic servant a felony, but also a provision for the removal from office of an elected official- to include a sheriff- who fails to perform the duties of his office, to include overlooking felony conduct by another public official.

Even better: A repeat of the same illegal act of Official Misconduct qualifies as a *Racketeering offense* under the Indiana state RICO statute, and governmental entities can be determined to be Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations just like any other criminal gang in a state court action that ANY affected Indiana resident can file. And, happily, the Indiana-based Citizens for Accountability in Government has helped citizenjs with such acts before.

IC 35-44-1-2
Official misconduct

35-44-1-2 Sec. 2. A public servant who: (1) knowingly or intentionally performs an act that the public servant is forbidden by law to perform;
(2) performs an act the public servant is not authorized by law to perform, with intent to obtain any property for himself or herself;
(3) knowingly or intentionally solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from an appointee or employee any property other than what the public servant is authorized by law to accept as a condition of continued employment;
(4) knowingly or intentionally acquires or divests himself or herself of a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise or aids another person to do so based on information obtained by virtue of the public servant's office that official action that has not been made public is contemplated;
(5) knowingly or intentionally fails to deliver public records and property in the public servant's custody to the public servant's successor in office when that successor qualifies; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally violates IC 36-6-4-17(b);

commits official misconduct, a Class D felony.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.54; Acts 1980, P.L.73, SEC.2; P.L.34-1992, SEC.2;

IC 35-45-6-1

Definitions

Note: This version of section amended by P.L.173-2006, SEC.53. See also preceding version of this section amended by P.L.151-2006, SEC.17.
35-45-6-1 Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:

"Documentary material" means any document, drawing, photograph, recording, or other tangible item containing compiled data from which information can be either obtained or translated into a usable form.
"Enterprise" means:
(1) a sole proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, business trust, or governmental entity; or

(2) a union, an association, or a group, whether a legal entity or merely associated in fact.
"Pattern of racketeering activity" means engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intent, result, accomplice, victim, or method of commission, or that are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics that are not isolated incidents. However, the incidents are a pattern of racketeering activity only if at least one (1) of the incidents occurred after August 31, 1980, and if the last of the incidents occurred within five (5) years after a prior incident of racketeering activity.

"Racketeering activity" means to commit, to attempt to commit, to conspire to commit a violation of, or aiding and abetting in a violation of any of the following:
(1) A provision of IC 23-2-1, or of a rule or order issued under IC 23-2-1.
(2) A violation of IC 35-45-9.
(3) A violation of IC 35-47.
(4) A violation of IC 35-49-3.
(5) Murder (IC 35-42-1-1).
(6) Battery as a Class C felony (IC 35-42-2-1).
(7) Kidnapping (IC 35-42-3-2).
(8) Human and sexual trafficking crimes (IC 35-42-3.5).
(9) Child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4).
(10) Robbery (IC 35-42-5-1).
(11) Carjacking (IC 35-42-5-2).
(12) Arson (IC 35-43-1-1).
(13) Burglary (IC 35-43-2-1).
(14) Theft (IC 35-43-4-2).
(15) Receiving stolen property (IC 35-43-4-2).
(16) Forgery (IC 35-43-5-2).
(17) Fraud (IC 35-43-5-4(1) through IC 35-43-5-4(9)).
(18) Bribery (IC 35-44-1-1).
(19) Official misconduct (IC 35-44-1-2)

[Mr. Lucky]

What you’ve quoted is not a statute, but rather an administrative regulation. In Indiana, as elsewhere in the US, an administrative warrant is required before a government inspector may enter onto property over the explicit objection of the occupier.

[Copernicus]

Not a terrible problem: Indiana has both a VERY strong *Official Misconduct* statute that makes illegal or unconstitutional activity by a poublic servant a felony, but also a provision for the removal from office of an elected official- to include a sheriff- who fails to perform the duties of his office, to include overlooking felony conduct by another public official.

There is also something called a Section 1983 Federal Violation.

Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

True story, a farmer I know actually filed one (not in Indiana- different state.)

He was shooting beavers on his farm when a Wildlife Resource Officer popped up out of nowhere and issued him a citation for illegal hunting.

He said not a word until he appeared in Court.

When asked by the Judge for his plea he submitted copies of State Law regarding ongoing Agricultural Operations, his various licenses and tax forms and made a short case for why his dispatch of nuisance animals was permitted without need for recourse to Wildlife Enforcement.

Judge went through the paperwork, took a recess and came back and banged his gavel- case dismissed!

Everyone thought that was that, but as the papers rustled in the courtroom for the next case he said; "Your honor, if I may, I would like to file a Section 1983 Petition for Relief.

The Judge knew exactly what that meant and he said "It is your right to do so if you wish"

When he returned to his farm his answering machine was filled with messages from the Wildlife Officer who had never heard of this type of lawsuit.

"You are SUEING ME?"

The Farmer was a pretty laid back guy. He settled for payment of court costs by the Wildlife Officer and a promise to never exceed his authority again.

I am sure the bureaucracy was rattled all the way to the top by that little fandango.

There is an entire section of law dedicated to wildlife and working farms that is not widely studied, but probably will be now.

Best regards,

[Copernicus]

But what if a person denies entry...

My favorite story to explain why you should ALWAYS deny entry in the absence of a warrant:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518374/posts

Best regards,