On 7/4/2011 4:58 PM, Evan wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:41 pm, wrote:
On 7/4/2011 11:44 AM, Evan wrote:



On Jul 4, 9:29 am, wrote:
On 7/3/2011 10:43 PM, Robert Green wrote:

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

Actually at least in my state if the police want a handy way to violate
the 4th amendment they bring a "game protector" along. "Game
protectors" are sometimes used in roadblock checkpoints for the same
reason.

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.

ROFL...

So what kind of game is the "game protector" trying to protect...
Deer and Moose can't fit into closets or furniture...

Don't need to find an entire animal. A feather (or suspicion of having
one) is sufficient cause for a "game protector".

It almost sounds bizarre but using a "game protector" is one of the
various ways police do an end run around the 4th Amendment. I know this
from very reliable people not a "Heybub".

And if a "game protectors" badge goes to his head they can cause
innocent people a lot of grief. There was a guy who worked in our region
who was famous for citing someone who say went for a walk in the woods
and found a feather and decided to pick it up.



The limited search powers he/she would have to look inside
enclosures within which "game" could be concealed are not
worth the charade to gain entry -- if the cops want to get you
they have informants who can claim you have all sorts of illegal
pills inside your house... Then the police can get a warrant
and search anywhere inside your house a pill could fit...
With the warrant there would be no easy 4th Amendment violation
to uncover -- the police obtained a tip and acted upon it -- it
is very very difficult to challenge such things after the fact
especially if the tip panned out...

~~ Evan

What department or division of your state do these "game protectors"
work for ? They sound like environmental cops who should be following
the warrant requirement... If they can arrest you for a violation

Is is its own independent bureaucracy organized as a commission (so no
oversight) filled with high paid positions with all appointments made by
the governor.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us

And while looking for the above I found this:

http://pgchallofshame.com/



within
their legal jurisdiction rather than issuing a civil fine or summons,
then
they require a warrant... Feathers, animals and what all aside --
someone with powers of arrest when they uncover a violation of the
laws (however small that subset might be) he/she is enforcing is a
peace/law enforcement officer and is therefore bound by the 4th
Amendment protections... If what you are saying is true about the
"game protectors" in your state, then some legal loop hole seems to
exist because the right test case hasn't come up yet to close it...

~~ Evan