wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 16:18:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think we are against code enforcement, but warrant issued for
suspicion can easily be abused. I think the codes are good, but I
don't want some inspector getting suspicious and obtaining a warrant
because my lawn seems too long so he suspects faulty wiring.

Even the FBI can't get a warrant based on "suspicion."

"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 or
things
to be seized."

The above does not apply to the TSA or the Border Patrol.

Or the game warden.

The difference being that the TSA, the Border Patrol or the game warden are
not likely to be encountered in one's house. There's still a strong
presumption in many (but not enough) states that a man's home is his castle.
One supposedly must submit to adult diaper searches by the TSA because one
wants to board an airplane. Same for BP (crossing the border) or the GW
(hunting game on public land - mostly).

But a building inspector entering because I used too much water and he
suspects bad plumbing? He's not coming in and if they yank my CO, we're
going to rumble in court and on the evening news. It might be a different
story if he can see an illegal addition from Google or the street, but I
believe there still has to be legally sufficient probable cause to enter a
private dwelling, especially by force.

--
Bobby G.