"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning commission
(building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search
warrants if they suspect “code” violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/

On 2011-07-03, HeyBub wrote:
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning commission
(building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search
warrants if they suspect “code” violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/

Glad to hear the baggers are doing something constructive, not jes
flapping their overwrought collective gums. I hope they prevail in
this case.

nb

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-03, HeyBub wrote:
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission
(building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search
warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?


http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/

Glad to hear the baggers are doing something constructive, not jes
flapping their overwrought collective gums. I hope they prevail in
this case.

Couldn't be a better proof of the saying "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance." Look for more stupidity like this as bankrupt local governments
seek to "fee us to death."

Soon they'll be swabbing your dog's mouth to find pooper scooper violators:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/us...ef=todayspaper

Canine DNA is now being used to identify the culprits who fail to clean up
after their pets, an offense that Deborah Violette, for one, is committed to
eradicating at the apartment complex she manages.

Everyone who owns a dog in her complex, Timberwood Commons in Lebanon, N.H.,
must submit a sample of its DNA, taken by rubbing a cotton swab around
inside the animal's mouth.

The swab is sent to BioPet Vet Lab, a Knoxville, Tenn., company that enters
it into a worldwide database. If Ms. Violette finds an unscooped pile, she
can take a sample, mail it to Knoxville and use a DNA match to identify the
offending owner.

What's NH's state motto? Leave free or die? I guess it's dying time.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue
search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/


I wonder if the enforcement guys wear uniforms. With Brown Shirts.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue
search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/

Satellite recon is being used also to identify new structures and
investigate if they got a permit or not. Google Earth is not being used, as
the photos there are at least 8 years old.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com
Heart Surgery Survival Guide

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/


I wonder if the enforcement guys wear uniforms. With Brown Shirts.

I wonder what the bounty is. And I wonder if the little kids are being
given a special class in school on how to report their evil dominating
controlling mess-up-your-social life
parents.................................

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
www.heartsurgerysurvivalguide.com
Heart Surgery Survival Guide

On Jul 3, 8:45*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

...

"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue
search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...nce-from-polic...

I wonder if the enforcement guys wear uniforms. *With Brown Shirts.

You should read your municipal code. Many places already give the
building inspector rights to enter a premises that even the police
don't have. You don't _have_ to let the inspector in, but they can
pull your CO and then you're in a ****ing match with a big-bellied
drunk. Not a good idea.

R

"Steve B" wrote in message
.. .

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."



What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places, the
code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like to see
in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code, don't move
there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car up on blocks
for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and transmission fluid,
with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the front yard, well then,
yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they are
professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give the
offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct the
deficiency.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 8:45 am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

...

"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue
search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...nce-from-polic...

I wonder if the enforcement guys wear uniforms. With Brown Shirts.

You should read your municipal code. Many places already give the
building inspector rights to enter a premises that even the police
don't have. You don't _have_ to let the inspector in, but they can
pull your CO and then you're in a ****ing match with a big-bellied
drunk. Not a good idea.

I read an article in the NYT archive about "poop scoop" inspectors in NYC.
Since the violation is of the health code only, you can apparently give the
inspector a false name or none, if stopped and they can't issue a citation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/ny...anted=2&ref=us

"Mr. Otibu approached and asked for picture identification. Without
identification, agents cannot write summonses, and a number of dog owners
sometimes refuse to show ID or claim to have left it at home. Leaving dog
waste is a health code violation, not an arrestable offense, so in those
cases, agents have to let the matter drop."

--
Bobby G.

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote

What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places,
the code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like
to see in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code,
don't move there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car
up on blocks for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and
transmission fluid, with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the
front yard, well then, yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

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.

This is power than can be easily abused.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:29:45 -0500, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
. ..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."



What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places, the
code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like to see
in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code, don't move
there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car up on blocks
for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and transmission fluid,
with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the front yard, well then,
yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

It's got nothing to do with "code enforcement". It's all about tax
collection.

I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they are
professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give the
offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct the
deficiency.

You must live in Utopia.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:29:45 -0500, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
. ..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."



What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places,
the
code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like to
see
in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code, don't
move
there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car up on
blocks
for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and transmission fluid,
with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the front yard, well then,
yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

It's got nothing to do with "code enforcement". It's all about tax
collection.

I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they are
professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give the
offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct the
deficiency.

You must live in Utopia.

How many angry homeowners does it take to push an univited Lynchburg home
inspector down the stairs?

None. He fell.

--
Bobby G.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote

What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places,
the code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like
to see in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code,
don't move there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his
car
up on blocks for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and
transmission fluid, with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the
front yard, well then, yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

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.

This is power than can be easily abused.

I say let them waste their money passing it. They'll just be buying
themselves a ticket to a ringside seat at the Supreme Court to watch it
struck down. You'd be surprised at how often local legislators who don't
know the Constitution from a roll of toilet paper dream up these patently
absurd ideas.

--
Bobby G.

AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they
are professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give
the offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct
the deficiency.

Giggle.

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.

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.

"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.

This is power than can be easily abused.

A Nazi treehugger in North Las Vegas found a law on the books that outlawed
weeds over 6" high. She then proceeded to make a formal written complaint
against ANYONE who had weeds taller than allowed. Before that, no one paid
any attention. But since they WERE written formal complaints, all had to be
acted upon. The list of offenders included policemen, firemen, city
officials, lots of people. I think the law was rescinded shortly after
that.

Steve

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.

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.

On Jul 4, 9:29*am, George 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...

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

On Jul 3, 5:18*pm, "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.

Right... And the 4th Amendment only applies to CRIMINAL LAW...

Code violations are more often than not civil infractions and 4th
Amendment protections do not apply as far as civil and administrative
law violations go -- any enforcement official who has powers of
arrest and seizure would need to obtain a warrant to enter any
premises they were not invited into by the person lawfully in control
of said premises...

Now the gray area is where the code officials bring along police
officers as "protection" when they enter a premises involuntarily...
Since the police officer is there only as a protector for the code
official the police officer is * NOT * allowed to search anything --
but if you leave criminal contraband (or evidence that something
illegal was present) then that is in plain view and the officer can
place you in custody while a warrant is obtained to further
search the premises...

~~ Evan

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

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote in message ...


What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement??

There is no problem if the code enforcers have solid grounds to believe that
building codes are being violated, but giving them the ability to conduct
fishing expeditions seems like abuse of power to me. Inspections of
commercial properties is another issue, but tromping around private homes in
hopes of finding something to cite is a bad idea.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:43:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

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.

Only if you're "suspected of poaching". They they're as happy to search your
shorts as is the TSA.

There's still a strong
presumption in many (but not enough) states that a man's home is his castle.

You certainly have a lot of trust in LE types.

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.

Fine. They have a lot more time and money than do you. If you have a
mortgage, you'd better have the cash to pay it off in your pocket.

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.

If they want to search your shorts, one can *easily* be fabricated. It
doesn't take a judge.

On Jul 4, 12:41*pm, George 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
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

On 7/3/2011 6:30 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning commission
(building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search
warrants if they suspect “code” violations."

Huh?

http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/



try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVACCaVxYEk

"Incident in Indiana where a health inspector trespasses on private property
while law enforcement looks on."



Also, it's not generally known that the police can without a warrant enter
your property, walk up to the front door and look through any glass in the
door or nearby windows along the way. The idea is that if any stranger can do
that (such as someone asking for directions), then the police can, too - they
don't have inferior rights. But if you have a fence with a gate (presumably
locked), then they can't enter.

They cannot without a warrant search the house or the "curtilage", which is
the area surrounding the house. So they can't go and look through your back
windows or doors.

But they can go up to any structures far from the house, even on your private
property. "Open fields" it's called. It's strange stuff, but true.

http://takingthefifth-acriminallawbl...tilage-search/

(All that is aside from probable cause or exigent circumstances.)

They can also put a GPS on your car, even if its in your own driveway... in
some appellate jurisdictions but not others. The idea is if they can follow
you by sight, they can with a GPS. Naturally, everything gets complicated, for
instance they might use a GPS only for a day or two but not indefinitely.

The SCOTUS decides some related cases soon. Naturally, it's usually lowlife
criminals at the center of these cases; but then the loss of rights affects us
all.

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

Oren wrote:
Did you buy your guns privately (without
papers), or through proper channels? If you did it privately so as to
avoid registration (which is legal in many states), ATF may have a
'heightened interest' in your property."


Buying guns "privately," as you said is legal in many states. As such, it IS
proper.

Plus, even if you buy your gun at a gun store, the ATF is not in the loop.
They do not know, nor have any way OF knowing, that you bought a gun (unless
they physically visit the store). In those states where the state has to be
informed of gun transfers, I don't think the state mentions the fact to the
ATF either.

You see, the ATF doesn't need to know, nor even wants to know, about your
guns. They will burn you out and kill your children if they merely feel like
it or if today is Tuesday.

On 7/5/2011 5:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:

You see, the ATF doesn't need to know, nor even wants to know, about your
guns. They will burn you out and kill your children if they merely feel like
it or if today is Tuesday.



well said

Robert Green posted for all of us...


"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2011-07-03, HeyBub wrote:
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission
(building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to issue search
warrants if they suspect "code" violations."

Huh?


http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/07/...ate-lynchburg/

Glad to hear the baggers are doing something constructive, not jes
flapping their overwrought collective gums. I hope they prevail in
this case.

Couldn't be a better proof of the saying "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance." Look for more stupidity like this as bankrupt local governments
seek to "fee us to death."

Soon they'll be swabbing your dog's mouth to find pooper scooper violators:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/us...ef=todayspaper

Canine DNA is now being used to identify the culprits who fail to clean up
after their pets, an offense that Deborah Violette, for one, is committed to
eradicating at the apartment complex she manages.

Everyone who owns a dog in her complex, Timberwood Commons in Lebanon, N.H.,
must submit a sample of its DNA, taken by rubbing a cotton swab around
inside the animal's mouth.

The swab is sent to BioPet Vet Lab, a Knoxville, Tenn., company that enters
it into a worldwide database. If Ms. Violette finds an unscooped pile, she
can take a sample, mail it to Knoxville and use a DNA match to identify the
offending owner.

What's NH's state motto? Leave free or die? I guess it's dying time.

I'm afraid the Constitution means nothing.

I wonder if this will evolve to the "inspectors" writing their own "search
warrants"? Like the Patriot Act did to Federal agencies...

--
Tekkie

Robert Green posted for all of us...

have to let the matter drop."


And that's not all...

--
Tekkie

HeyBub posted for all of us...


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.

Not since the "Patriot Act"

--
Tekkie

Tekkie® wrote:

I'm afraid the Constitution means nothing.

I wonder if this will evolve to the "inspectors" writing their own
"search warrants"? Like the Patriot Act did to Federal agencies...

The Patriot Act did no such thing. It expanded the use of "administrative
subpoenas" from the handful of places already authorized by law (financial
institutions, storage shed rentals, etc.) to any commercial facility.

Here's why the change was sought:

On the morning of 9/11, FBI agents fanned out in Boston hoping to get the
hotel check-out records of guests that had left earlier that morning. The
idea was that by matching these guests to the airplane manifests they might
uncover a clue leading to suspects still in the air.

In every case, the hotels refused, citing "privacy" concerns. There is, of
course, no LEGAL privacy right to a commercial transaction; the hotels were
merely following their own policies. The hotels could have been compelled
via a warrant or grand jury subpoena, but those would have taken several
hours to perfect.

The change provided by the Patriot Act revision now allows the FBI to flush
out these records forthwith.

Tekkie® wrote:
HeyBub posted for all of us...


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.

Not since the "Patriot Act"

Search warrants NEVER applied to the Border Patrol. The TSA operates
entirely on "voluntary" searches for which no warrant is needed.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Tekkie® wrote:
HeyBub posted for all of us...


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.

Not since the "Patriot Act"

Search warrants NEVER applied to the Border Patrol. The TSA operates
entirely on "voluntary" searches for which no warrant is needed.

Voluntary, as in, "Sir, you have two choices. I can search you, then you
can get on the plane. You can refuse to be searched, and you will not get
on the plane. Which is your voluntary choice?"

Steve

Steve B wrote:

Search warrants NEVER applied to the Border Patrol. The TSA operates
entirely on "voluntary" searches for which no warrant is needed.

Voluntary, as in, "Sir, you have two choices. I can search you, then
you can get on the plane. You can refuse to be searched, and you
will not get on the plane. Which is your voluntary choice?"


Well, yeah. You explicitly possess all manner of constitutional rights. You
also have an implicit right, as one judge put it, "... to waive all those
rights and take your punishment like a man!"

Aside:
The judge was only partly correct. In my state, a criminal defendant may
wave any or all constitutional rights except one: The right to a jury trial
in a capital case.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:29:45 -0500, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
. ..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"[VIRGINIA] The City of Lynchburg is trying to give the planning
commission (building permits, code enforcement, etc.) the ability to
issue search warrants if they suspect "code" violations."



What's the problem with vigorous code enforcement?? In a lot of places, the
code specifics a minimum standard that's below what most people like to see
in their neighborhoods - and besides, if ya don't like the code, don't move
there - then again, if you one of those guys that likes his car up on blocks
for months at a time on a driveway stained by oil and transmission fluid,
with the car's engine suspended from a tree in the front yard, well then,
yeah, I guess you'd be against code enforcement.

I think the code enforcement guys where I live do a great job - they are
professional, and, if anything, they bend over backwards to give the
offender the benefit of the doubt and plenty of time to correct the
deficiency.

If you lived in my town you'd change your tune soon enough. The
previous inspector used to hit the local gin mill and brag about
busting balls over trivialities. He said he hated homeowners who did
their own work because it denied the work to "legitimate" contractors.
Mercifully, he dropped dead from a heart attack. If I knew where the
AH was buried I'd crap on his grave.