Swingers on Swingular - Swingers Forum

She may have had probable cause, but she never stated that. A peace officer or state official may search the property without a warrant if they have the consent of the owner. If not, they need a search warrant to do the search. Put yourself in this person

As soon as she entered the property without consent he should have demanded the officer arrest the woman for trespassing.. and if he refused then the Supervisor should have been called and had the office relieved of his duty.

He has the right to his property, without a warrant, she has no right to be there...PERIOD...IF they got a call, they would have been able to get a warrant, any sort of suspected code violations, which is what it seemed like to me had to be seen from the street OR they would need a warrant...The cop, like oh so many, was usless aside for being an instrument of the state for an attempt to control the masses.

Don, what probable cause did she have? She did not say what she was looking for, what is your basis for probable cause?

Jeff, WTF man? He is trailer trash? What made you think that? Because he had a trailer? What if he bought that property on which to build a custom home, but needed the trailer to live in until the home was done? You seem to just be attempting to stir up some shit....Perhaps you should continue to stay out of the forum, as you stated you usually do. Seems you are passing judgement without a full picture, which is what you seem to think those who believe in the constitution are doing.

For those who do not know what probable cause is, it essentially can be described as: If you get pulled over, and the officer smells alcohol on your breath, he has probable cause to administera field sobriety test. If he smelled marijuana smoke, he has probable cause to search your car. If they came to your door, and there was a syringe in the front window sill, they would have probable cause to search your home for illegal drugs. Essentially, if there is a large amount of evidence that there is or was a crime commited, they have probable cause, HOWEVER, there has to be evidence "in plain sight," not someone calling and saying, "Joe is dealing dope." They would have to see Joe deal dope.

Another odd thing, you do NOT have to give your name to a police officer, as long as you are not driving, however refusal to do so will result in arrest for obstruction of justice, won't stick, but will get you to be printed so they find out who you are.

Finally, another flaw, she would not give her last name, someone said that you have to. Not so, first name and last intial is all that is required, HOWEVER, if she was showing a badge or ID, with a last initial, she would also have to provide her employee or badge number with the ID.

There did not seem to e any probable cause there...however, I would like to know how you saw probable cause if you see it.

I think he will sue, however, if Indiana is anythign like Florida, he will not get anything. In Florida, you have to ask permission from the government to sue the government in a state court, and there are VERY few lawyers who would take this case to the federal court system, not enough money in it. Perhaps the ACLU would assist him, but I doubt that too, they are VERY choosy abotu the cases they take....

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 that NO warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by OATH or affermation,and particularly describing the place to be searched ,and the persons or things to be siezed.

Seems most ignore the last sentance that clearly states the oath or affermation must come before the issuance of the warrant and thus BEFORE the search not as an after the fact police report or other post search document.

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.-John Fitzgerald Kennedy,Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

I did some research and what the officer and health official did is completely legal.

Here's the link to the legal paper opinions to the revelant case:

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02210601trb.pdf

Rights violated? yes AND no

All of this is without knowing if he had any prior legal notices presented to him on what he was doing and if they were coming .Assuming none of the above apply then this is how it was explained to me.

Even tho the tractor and dirt could be seen from the driveway being parked BEHIND the trailer ( we'll get to that discussion in a moment jeffingersaul ) Does NOT give the right for anyone to just come on the property to see whats going on.

HOWEVER she DID enter by "public access" (driveway entrance) but then violated that "public access " when she left the driveway and normal path to the entrance door of the trailer, by crossing the yard without following a public route to get to the dirt and tractor that was obviously behind the trailer FROM STREET VIEW.

Therefore had the tracter and dirt been in the FRONT yard, the land owner would have NO recourse but to let them come (as an official of the state) to investigate his work.

Since that landowner has NO FENCE and NO GATE on his property he leaves himself open to public judgementations and legal evaluations from public accessways.

The officer , did anyone notice he stayed outside the "pole" that marked the property line?
He did this ,from what i saw, even after his backup officer had arrived. Wonder why?

Not sure about where they were but in Texas he didnt have a right to intrude on the property once the land owner said he wasnt allowed on the property without a warrant and with no physical harm being committed to another human or animal.
He also should have advised the "lady" of the same thing AND advised her that a trespassing ticket would be issued if she pursued her quest without the land owners consent or official paperwork.

For those that believe the "no trespassing" signs are designed to make a legal line to stop people from crossing. They are not. they are merely a suggestion that the property owner would prefer you stay out of that area.They give no legal help in court unless it pertains to dog attacks AND ONLY IF in conjuction WITH " BEWARE OF DOG" signs AND "THIS DOG BITES AND OR ATTACKS"

TRAILER TRASH;
jeffingersaul your comments of the land owner, in the film,being in a trailer were unfounded ,snobbish ,egotistical and unwarranted. If you feel you are so much better than everyone else because you dont live in a trailer i have some shocking news for you.
Do you make 100,000.oo or more a yr? Do you drive a high end luxury car? do you vacation in the Bahamas or Tahiti twice a yr? Do you care less what gas cost ?
If you answered yes to ANY/ALL of these questions then you are NO better than anyone else.

for example ; my neighbor to the west side of me is a corporate attorney.He drives a Lotus his wife drive a Rolls convertable and they live on 5 acres.
My neighbor on the east side of me has 10 acres he is chief surgeon at a local major hospital and his wife is the area director for a well known financial investment company. he drives a new Mercedez each yr and she drives a new Jag every other yr.

I am a lead technician and automotive advise columnist and my better half is a custom cabinet maker. She drives a Dodge Dynasty and i drive a Dodge p/u . We live on 2 acres of land.

All of us have a few things in common. 1 we all meet at our place once a month for BBQ ,drinks and laughs. 2 we live in a gated community 3 MOST IMPORTANT ........WE ALL LIVE IN DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So basically what i am saying is GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE and join the rest of us . You dont like people that live in mobile homes? fine that is your preferance BUT dont even think for a nano second you are better than anyone else.

The question of "Civil Rights" in the U.S.A. is a laughable question of sorts. In this day and time as the nation looses more and more civil rights many more discussions can be started such as this one. Big Brother,Smoking,Abortion,Driving,Cencorship, and the list goes on.
As far as swinging goes it is supposedly not a good thing in some circles but by whos determination? Another discussion for another time.

Dammit this is why i try to stay off these boards.........makes my fingers hurt.....lol

Well i am sure i will get some feedback on this long comment so go ahead whether i reply back or not is not your concern. Your only concern is to be heard and share your thoughts (right or wrong are not my call either) with others.

They havent taken freedom of speech from us YET! So until then keep it up folks.

Pappa Smurf

as far as warrantless searce goes,there was not any exigent circumstance to facilitate the need for immediate search.nor was the tractor visible from the street(per tr's observation)and even if it was maybe the man was just leveling his back yard.maybe the piles of dirt had been trucked in.lots of possibilities.there was no reason that a prudent gov agent should not have gone to a judge for a warrant.for those that think she was right in trespassing what if a fence had been in place would she still have been right?just because a person does not agree to a search does not mean they are hiding something,obviously you have never had your property search.thing get thown around nothing gets put back until you go back do it.for those that think just because a cop ask to search you should let him,try reversing it on him ask if you can search his/her house first and you will see they will say no,so i guess they are hiding something.just for the record i am not trailer trash but i am trucker trash and biker trash having belonged to the main club down here in florida.and if i was to go back to school and take the rest of required classes i would have a criminal justice degree.

the court case i saw was about a dog. the officer in question had exigent circumstances to go ahead and look at dog for his well being.the woman had been there the day before and told not to trespass,so instead of going after a warrant she decided to hell with warrant i will just get a deputy to go with me so i won't get hurt.if she had probable cause it would have been a lot easier to get a warrant.as another possibility marbe the man was planting a big tree,i do not believe you need a permit to plant trees.that 20 feet you speak of is called public right-of-way and that is as far as law enforcement may enter as is evidenced by the deputy staying off of the man's property and just observing.had the man gotten physical with her he then could have entered property.like i said what if a fence had been in place could she have opened a gate and gone on in?bottom line she should have gotten a warrant.i would love to see the outcome of this case.i will not dispute permit process,i do not know for sure if one is required or not to move dirt around.
phil

You all need to read the 4th ammendment.(I posted it on pg. 1) Read it a few times. let the words sink in. The "probable cause" is to obtain the warrant NOT I repeat NOT to conduct the search!!! And this is where yes even the courts are failing America. but then it's an easy and slippery slope when the people of this country don't know and aren't educated on the actual wording and meaning of our contitutional rights.

In TR's example of the green house the officer would have probable cause to obtain a search warrant, not to conduct the search. but that is ignored now days.

The reason why the airlines had to do security prior to 9/11 was because it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct them. Well "Ze Fazerland securities act" took care of that. Either it be a metal detector,frisking,or X-ray a search is being conducted and your unalianable rights are being violated.

the so called airline search is not unconstitutional,the public welfare is put above a single person's expectation.it is like freedom of spech we all enjoy it but you can not walk into a crowded theater for instance and yell fire,it is against the law
phil

paperless or on paper the woman is not law enforcement,she is a health inspector if that and needs a warrant in such a case.when she goes to inspect a restaurant for example they have to let her in or be shut down so no warrant needed but there is nothing to force a home owner to allow her on the property.as far as paperless warrants go they must be on paper otherwise law enforcement could search any one at any time they choose and get the warrant afterwards and just say well we had a paperless warrant.all search warrants must be signed by offercer requesting it and the judge allowing it for it to be legal
phil

plain view does not work either it is not against the any laws that i know of to dig a hole on your private property nor to temperarily park a tractor there.besides to see the holes she had to enter the property and that makes it not in plain sight.all she saw was a pile of dirt and a tractor,which might lead a prudent person to believe there is a hole there but like i said perhaps the dirt had been trucked in.no laws broke.
phil

Granted, with the airlines there is a voluntary consent implied also so I understand the flaw with that example.

As to the paperless warrant you mention TR ,yes I understand that that's how it is, however it does not make it any less wrong based on the wording of the actual ammendment. It is a circumvention of it. Which is very much inline with the cycles of democracy in which it degrades into totalitarianism. Our country is currently in the apathy stage. A "why should I care if they search him they aren't searching me" or"they wouldn't be searching him if he hadn't been doing something wrong"kind of attitudes. "who cares what the government does I have beer and the game to watch" seems to be all too common one these days.

My personal experience was being pulled over for speeding(7mph over) and being TOLD "stand over there I'm searching your car" by the officer after also having been given a field sobriety test(which I passed perfectly due to the fact I had not been drinking) which was also unfounded. I was driving a freshly detailed 74 pontiac grandville convert w/the top down. This officer had no cause to do anything other than issue the citation for speeding. HE WAS FISHING!!!! plain and simple. When asked what he was looking for reply was "what ever I might find"

you may consider her law enforcement but she has no arrest powers,she has no badge,nor does she carry a weapon.law enforcement goes though about 20 -26 weeks of an academy and must pass certification tests.code inspectors and health officials have no such academy.any one can do it no certification required
phil

again back to what i said earlier she had ample opportunity and time to get a warrant why didn't she if she had all that probable cause?and you mean to tell me in oregon you cannot dig a hole in your own backyard without a permit,not so here in florida.i will take a wild guess here but do the farmers need a permit to plow.i mean just in case they plow to deep and hit a phone line or something.yes i am being rediculous but makes sence to me if permits are needed to dig
phil

warrant 1) n. an order (writ) of a court which directs a law enforcement officer (usually a sheriff) to arrest and bring a person before the judge, such as a person who is charged with a crime, convicted of a crime but failed to appear for sentencing, owes a fine, or is in contempt of court. A "bench warrant" is an order to appear issued by the court when a person does not appear for a hearing, which can be resolved by posting bail or appearing. A "search warrant" is an order permitting a law enforcement officer to search a particular premises and/or person for certain types of evidence, based on a declaration by a law enforcement official, including a district attorney.

In the scheme of the Amendment, therefore, the requirement that 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,' plays a crucial part.'' 17 Therefore, ''the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through a warrant procedure

in this case the woman had ample time and opportunity to obtain a warrant

now according to the websters that have warrant in reference to laws means,a writ authorizingan arrest,search,seizure,etc.
same dictionary has a writ as a formal legal document ordering or prohibiting some action

i have yet to see a paperless document,therefore must be in writing
phil

Thank you Phil

Don go back to your own link and read history of amendment it started evolving in 1603 but was already used in england before that
phil

And a "blanket" warrant also fails the test do to the fact that it cannot peticularly describe the places to be searched or the persons or items to be seized.

is it against the law to have a tractor in your yard?not in florida.
is it against the law to have a pile of dirt in your yard?not in florida.
is it against the law to have holes in your yard?not in florida.
now what about in indiana?
there are no such thing as a blanket search warrant.how would that protect anyone?a cop goes in and finds some little something that deems illegal and voila.each warrant is different must state what is being looked for and where.
phil

The NEW forth ammendment?? I didn't know it had been constitutionaly ammended and ratified as NEW?

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=378393966+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

It's been been changed by judicial precedings since it was born dude. Go to that goverment link above and do a search for the word "warrantless".

Try this one too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

ok i've had enough nothing will change your mind you win Don.you go ahead and allow any cop to search anything you have just because he wants to and says he has a paperless warrant,but i on the other hand will tell said cop to go fuck himself with that paperless warrant.think about it if cops have a blanket paperless warrant why do they bother to ask for permission to search,and when a person says no they try to shame that person into letting them search.when that does not work they threaten to go get a warrant and you will have to wait till they get it?hell Don go out, stop a cop and ask them if there is such a thing.great conversation but getting bored with it so i'm gonna be like waaaaaa and go off and cry now.just kidding i'm going to cry just have other things to do.y'all be good
phil

wait a minute there is a difference in warrantless and paperless.yes there are warrantless under certain circumstances.could not resist that one

Sorry Don, felony in progress is a different mater so nix on that come back.

oops cannot resist this one either that is a warrantless search with exigent circumstances(cop believes some one is in peril, but if it is me making her scream then i probally would(lol).Don you've gone from paperless to warrantless so i guess you agree there is no such thing as paperless.on warrantless there are lots of exception but the cop still has to articulate in court why he/she could not wait,ie:exigent circumstances,felony in progress,evidence could be transported away or destroyed,etc
phil

plain view but not contraband

and again if a felony was in progress why didn't the deputy arrest the felon?

As it stands today(my opion) they've changed what constitutes "reasonable", allowed suspicion to pass for probable cause and in general ignored the oath and affirmation parts of the ammendment thus altering it's intention and application. Face it your government doesn't trust you and wants to be able to snoop where it wants,whenever it wants.

hey Don please attach a link to the site that shows the statute for this presigned search warrant you speak of.and if a cop observes a felony in progress he must act on it,oh yea a misdemeanor also.therefore if there was a crime being committedthe cop had a duty to act and to confiscate said contraband and arrest the offender.as stated earlier the deputy was only there to keep the peace and stayed off of property as requested.

Don, I think we all know how important being "right" is to you......lol

The lawn is calling

there again you are not answering question.if a crime o9r a felony as you stated earlier was in progress or had been committed why didn't the deputy act on it?don't be shy just answer question
phil

no one is argueing a warrantless search,seazure,or arrest just whether probable cause was there.come on now admit you are wrong .you were talking paperless warrants before,now you are on warrantless.like slowhand and i have both said YES THERE ARE TIMES A WARRANT IS NOT NEEDED but this was not one of those times
phil

attach a link showing his case all i saw was about the dog
attach a link showing where excavating in your backyard is a felony
as stated there is no such thing as a paper less warrant,but ther are warrantless searches but only under certain circumstances and again officer MUST be able to articulate cicumstances in court.as far as woman getting a warrant you said she was there the day before so she had time to get a warrant

and as i said stop a cop and ask
phil

Phil, I'd love to ask my neighbor. He's a cop. If I see him today - going to be in and out of the house all day, I'll ask him and see what he says.

I do know that even with DCFS, you do not have to allow them in your house without a warrant. You can refuse to talk to them and refuse to let them talk to your children if they are in the home. You can specify with the school, but it may not be adhered to. DCFS workers carry a badge, but the do not have their last names, only an initial. It is only after an investigation that you may - or may not - get a last name. (my sis works for DCFS)

We've been at a house party where priggish neighbors called the cops. The cops came out, did not come in and did not take a look around. They did say the parties sounded fun and wished they could come. haha

Ali

Don these are all statements that you made which ones are right?

"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". A paperless warrant (probable cause search) is granted by judges across the United States based upon probable cause by a police officer or other authority. The fourth amendment does not say that it has to be in writing. It just says a warrant by the judge

Show me in that simplistic version of the 4th amendment where it says warrants shall be written on paper.

A paper warrant is defined as a blanket permission by the presiding judge stating that if probable cause is found, the officer may search. It is defined in the law. In writing. In other words, it is already written (writ). It is a blanket warrant that covers probable cause that has been served to the entire public in written form in the local governments statutes. You see? You have been served the warrant already.

Warrant requirement
Under the amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, in order to lawfully search for and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity

Indiana State Health Inspector law. IC 16-20-1-23 Inspection of private property; property in which officer has interest Sec. 23. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the local health officer or the officer's designee may enter upon and inspect private property, at proper times after due notice, in regard to the possible presence, source, and cause of disease. The local health officer or designee may order what is reasonable and necessary for prevention and suppression of disease and in all reasonable and necessary ways protect the public health

I notice in indiana state health inspection law it says with due notice.was due notice given?

using your own link a warrant is a writ
a writ is a written statement hence a warrant has to be written
your job had nothing to do with warrants it is like you said about flying if you do not want to be searched then go away and do not enter.no warrant required.like i said already you win i am going to find a brick wall to debate with and see if i can change it's mind
phil

don don don come on you keep going all over the place you posted a link for the def.of warrant in the def.it states in law a warrant is a writ

From the perspective of a police officer, a warrant is generally not required for "administrative" inspections, such as health code violations, electrical inspections, building code violations, etc. These are not criminal matters, they are administrative law. For example, when I built my house, I would have had the right to refuse entry for the inspector when my septic drain field was completed, however, the electric and water companies had the obligation under the state and county codes not to turn on my water or electricity until I complied. Many administrative codes come with a sort of "implied consent" built in. By subscribing to our utility companies' services, we give implied consent for administrative inspections. We can refuse, but will go without power, water, gas, etc until we comply. Too many people are armed with just enough knowledge to be totally wrong. A search warrant only applies in criminal matters, people, and is not always required in criminal cases. She asked about a well, and from the looks of what I could see in the video, he may have been digging in relation to a septic system. If you got your water from a well, would you want your next door neighbor digging his septic field right next to his well, causing his drainage to run right into the water table that your well draws from? I wouldn't! This guy was totally showing his ass!

As far as someone else who said the officer's supervisor should have been called and "relieved the officer of his duty", that is funny. There are only 2 times when I am required to make an arrest, one is on order of a warrant, the other is when specifically required by statute, for example in a domestic violence case when I believe an assault has taken or will take place. In simple misdemeanors, the law says I MAY make an arrest without a warrant.

Regarding warrantless entry, if I get dispatched to a call for a domestic violence for example, and the husband refuses to give me entry to investigate, I don't have to go get a warrant to enter the house or property. If need be in the course of my investigation, I can kick the door in and arrest him for obstruction. Plain and simple.

People need to be a little more sure of their information before they go off and show their ass like this idiot did in the video. There was more to this situation, I am sure, than what the loudmouth in the video wants people to know.

Charlie

After spending some time looking through the Indiana state code, it seems that the evidence in the video isn't sufficient to make a decision regarding whether or not the state health inspector had a legal right to conduct the inspection. But, it does seem like she was in the wrong unless there were other exchanges not caught on the tape which are entirely possible.

According to Indiana state code:

13-4-5-2
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 3 of this chapter, the designated agent of the department conducting the inspection must provide the property owner with the following:
(1) Before completing an inspection of property under IC 13-14-2-2, an oral report of the inspection that includes any specific matters discovered during the inspection that the designated agent of the department believes may be a violation of a law or of a permit issued by the department.
(2) Not later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the inspection, a written summary of the oral report given under subdivision (1).

Here it states that the health inspector must have given the property owner an oral report of what is to be inspected and the reasons why, in narrow focus. Specifically, the health inspector must have given reason to search and precisely what it was she was looking for on the property. Asking the property owner "Do you have a well?" does not satisfy the requirement in this statute, the health inspector must have had previous knowledge of a well and give reason to believe the property owner is contaminating the ground water, for example: "There is a well on your property, and we believe your excavation might be contaminating that well with (specific pollutants here)." Without a prior declaration of what they were looking for specifically, and what the property owner was doing specifically, they have no right to search the premises. Suspicion that "something" dastardly was happening without any inkling of what the dastardly deed might be does not constitute probable cause in this case. But like I said, there may have been more information not seen on the video that could have satisfied this requirement.

The previous title makes reference to this title:
IC 13-14-2-2
Entry upon private or public property for inspection by agent
Sec. 2. The department may have a designated agent, upon presentation of proper credentials, enter upon private or public property to inspect for and investigate possible violations of any of the following:
(1) Air pollution control laws.
(2) Water pollution control laws.
(3) Environmental management laws.
(4) IC 13-18-9. (Prohibitions on Certain Detergents)
(5) IC 13-18-10. (Confined Feeding Control)
( 6 ) IC 13-19-2. (Establishment of Solid Waste Management Board)
(7) IC 13-19-3. (Powers and Duties Concerning Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management)
(8) Any rule adopted by one (1) of the boards.

This title makes what the health inspector can look for and include in her oral report prior to search very explicit. Looking through all of the titles above, I can find no title disallowing a man from either moving dirt or digging holes on his property. There is no permit in Indiana code specifically for either of these activities, nor is it in the purview of the health department to enforce or regulate. Again, there may have been specific pollutants suspected in regard to air pollution (dust and certain particles in it might qualify here) or water pollution, but none of that evidence was present in the video.

With this information in light, the case stated previously on this thread:
Trimble v. State of Indiana
Found here: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02210601trb.pdf

Is moot. In Trimble, the court found that a casual look regarding trouble in the area was sufficient to warrant probable cause and Mr. Trimble had no expectation of privacy when his wrongdoing was easily observable from street level. Since moving dirt around a yard, digging holes, or owning a tractor is not a violation of any Indiana state code, Trimble has no bearing on this case. Every observable activity from public view was legal, and nothing in the video illustrated any wrongdoing.

To me, it seems like this case was mishandled. The health inspector could have easily obeyed the laws set forth in code by providing the property owner with specific health violations that she wanted to look for. If that investigation turned up any other suspicions, the health inspector could have moved on to form a proper investigation under lawful warrant. However, it seemed to me that the health inspector had no idea what proper procedures were and tried to enter the property under the auspices of Gestapo like authority without a specific oral report, nor any direction to her search.

The property as we know now was condemned, but I doubt that condemnation took place as a result of this particular search. The health department probably sent a more competent inspector to make its findings. Also on the eBay article, the property owner claims to have filed suit after this took place and won, which I wouldn't doubt, but also can't substantiate.

FollowtheFender

ok don you can have last word after you reply to this i will reply anymore.read charlies replyplain sight huh well my harley is in plain sight when i belonged to the OUTLAWS m/c my patch was in plain sight but that did not mean any laws were being broke as a pile of dirt and a tractor do not indicate laws are being broke.the dirt could have been trucked in,as holes not visible from streetnow i ask you don is having dirt delivered to your property against the law?and i ask again show me where the indiana supreme court heard his case,you keep going to the dog case which is all together different to every one but you.on a lighter note sure wish y'all lived here in florida we could get together and have some great discussions.ok get the last word!
phil

What was the notice that she gave the day before? That's the important thing. She can give notice just before walking onto the property, at the time of the video if she so chose. The important question is what she said and what she was looking for. Walking onto the property asking if there is a well there does not satisfy the requirement. She must have given him specific reason to believe a specific well was being contaminated with a specific substance. She seemed very unprepared on the video to provide any specifics regarding her search.

I'm not saying that the notice given the day before wasn't sufficient, but I have no proof of that either way. Judging just by what I see on the video though, I would assume she was just as unprepared the day before as she was the day of.

FollowtheFender

ok i lied where do you get she saw him doing anything the day before.the man just said she was there not that she was there while he was digging.please reread your own post and quit contridicting yourself and asking question about what you posted.have you posted all of it or are hiding part just for the sake of debate?what judge?what case?only case that was shown was dog case!you keep referencing his case where is it?hell the county here has condemn a trailer park so they can widen the road.imagine a whole trailer park.i had a problem with renters once and had a deputy come out.he there just to observe and keep the peace.a lot of repo guys will have a deputy standing by just in case there is a problem.does not mean any notice was given to the person whose getting his property repoed.i know not the same but just as close as your dog case.in a repo notice is not required in this case notice was required

Assuming all of that was true, then the search was lawful. My only point here is that we don't have the evidence to even argue that point with what was on that video which is all we have of this case.

On the video, we see her give no oral report of substances or specific wrongdoings and enter a property without a warrant or cause. We know that the property was eventually condemned due to the eBay article, but we don't know if that was a direct result of this search. We know that the property owner claims to have won civil suit in this case, but we also don't have the specifics of that case. I'm sure with some more research, we could find all of this as it's a matter of public record, but I don't have any kind of inclination to do that.

Like I said though, we don't have enough to go on with this video alone. To me, it seems like anything this woman would have turned up in her investigation would have been entirely moot, but I could be wrong. She may have presented the man with a paper written by her superiors describing exactly what she was looking for which would have also made the search lawful. But coming up to the property line, asking to search the property, and asking the man if he has a well, then proceeding onto the property is not lawful under Indiana code.

Getting an officer or two at the time of the search also doesn't mean much as they could have been just as unaware of the statutes as she was (assuming she was unaware of them).

My assessment is that this woman doesn't seem to have the presence of mind to have even read the laws, let alone know them well enough to have conducted any kind of search, but that's just from watching the video and her vacant statements there. There are any number of other factors that could have made the search entirely legal. We just don't know.

FollowtheFender

Excavation, holes, and a tractor are not enough. In fact, they aren't even in the purview of the health department to enforce.

She needed to:

a) Have a clear idea of how any possible contamination was taking place.
b) Know exactly what was being contaminated in the first place (water, air, whatever).
c) Know exactly what substance( s ) was causing said contamination.
d) Give the owner of the property an oral or written report detailing all of this specifically and the scope of her search.

We saw her do none of this in the video. Like I said, she might have done it the day before, she might have provided him with a paper describing it, but neither of us can say one way or another that she did that or didn't.

FollowtheFender

In Indiana, you don't have to have a permit to dig. The laws are very specific regarding how, when, and why a search can be conducted. He can dig to his hearts content all over his property according to Indiana law without any kind of permit. In fact, there is no permit process for digging at all, I looked for it in the code and found nothing. There are a number of other things that you need a permit for, but none of those activities were being engaged by this person.

He can dig, he can excavate, he can go all the way down until he hits bedrock and cart it off to the middle east if he so chooses, all without a permit of any kind.

Just to add here, I agree with your assessment that she can come onto the property to look for materials that are causing harm. However, she has to be specific in what she is looking for. Maybe saying "There is a well on your property that we believe you may be contaminating with your excavation project" would have been enough as well. But not even that was stated. The important thing, like I've said is what she stated she was looking for. On the video I saw her state nothing at all. But she did have a bundle of papers in her hands that might have stated all of this.

FollowtheFender

That doesn't say you need a permit. It says that you need to find out where the underground facilities are before digging. Nothing regarding a specific permit.

FollowtheFender

Assuming he didn't give notice to dig, which it seems this particular person probably didn't give I'll grant you. It still isn't in the health department's purview to conduct a search of his property, if anything it would fall on some sort of land assessment department to go and give the guy a fine for digging without calling in first. Assuming he was digging without giving notice, then that should have been apparent by looking at the property from outside and again, no search required. The sheriff could have come to his property line, served him a fine, and left.

But even so, I saw no holes in the video anyway, just piles of dirt that looked like were brought in from outside sources.

FollowtheFender

I'm not arguing whether he lost the case or not, he obviously did. In fact, most of what I've been saying since the start is that we don't have enough evidence in the video to say with certainty one way or another whether the government officials were in the right or not in this case.

My personal bias says that they were in the wrong, but that's no better than a good guess based on the actions of the officials we saw in the video. I would also guess that this search proved nothing and they had to do it again the right way later on, which led to his property being condemned. Like I said though, this second paragraph is personal bias and has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts at hand.

Facts established:

1. The video shows the health department official failing to follow protocol in that particular portion of time.
2. At some point the guy's property was condemned.

We don't know if the health department followed the rules before or after that video. She could have followed protocol the day before, they might have even mailed him a letter or nailed a notice to his no trespassing sign, all of which would have constituted proper notice.

We dispute only one fact as far as I can tell. Whether or not the health department has jurisdiction over excavation. If the health department had just cause to believe the property owner was working with harmful pollutants, then I would agree with you that they had the jurisdiction over this case. However, we see no evidence of that in the video, no statement of that in the video, nothing. If this were simply a dispute over whether or not he should be allowed to dig in his backyard with no evidence or reasonable suspicion of harmful substance being involved (dirt is not a harmful substance to people or well water), then it was not their jurisdiction.

Does a neighbor calling into the health department and saying "so and so is digging in his backyard" constitute a health risk to you? It makes no sense. I'm sure they have some kind of department of land management or agricultural committee that oversees this sort of transgression if he were digging without informing someone.

In any case, we don't have the phone call information before the video, nor do we know what the health department said they were looking for, nor what the judge's decision was, nor any tangible facts in this case. As of now, I'm sticking to the limited facts we have:

1. There was a phone call describing "digging" no further information.
2. The health department showed up to investigate said "digging."
3. No information was given by the health department to this property owner regarding reason for search.
4. The health department in normal circumstances according to Indiana state code does not appear to have jurisdiction over mundane digging or transport of ordinary dirt.

Given that these are the only facts I have based on the video, my bias leans in favor of the property owner. However, given that the decision was made out of his favor in this case, I'm absolutely sure that there is a lot of information not present here. Given all of these facts, I'm convinced we are discussing a situation of "what ifs" and "could have beens" without any sort of basis in reality.

Don't get all worked up over it, neither of us know for sure what specifically happened in the case. We have a tiny window of information which, given the context, shines a poor light on the officials who were working the case. Just so we are clear, my position is "I don't know what happened or why" based on the facts that we have. My bias (based on my experiences in life and the video but not on all facts) is that they were in the wrong at the time the video was captured. In any case, I'm not arguing the point, just saying we have no idea what happened based solely on the video.

FollowtheFender

Swingers Forum - CIVIL RIGHTS