The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 121    Average: 3.9/5]
113 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 14871
Rating: 3.9
Category: Misc
Date: 09/08/07 02:10 AM

113 Responses to Health Inspector Trespassing

  1. Profile photo of buddy
    buddy Male 30-39
    10116 posts
    September 7, 2007 at 5:51 pm
    Link: Health Inspector Trespassing - Sheriff`s Deputy allows an unwarranted search.
  2. Profile photo of JaundiceCake
    JaundiceCake Female 18-29
    674 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:15 am
    He`s right, you know. They need a warrant.
    The deputy was hilarious. "Whhhhyyyyy?" So unprofessional.
  3. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:22 am
    I watched the full 9 minutes.
    And nothing happened.

    It was just a fat cop and an annoying government worker being told to leave for 9 minutes by a dude who reads bills/ammendments/constitutions just to find loopholes, and anything that will benefit him if he gets into court.

  4. Profile photo of mmafighter
    mmafighter Male 18-29
    14 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:23 am
    More power to him! That`s some messed up stuff. I hope it turned out for him.
  5. Profile photo of chillywhack
    chillywhack Male 40-49
    161 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:27 am
    Loophole!?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me?! He has a RIGHT to refuse access to his property. Without a warrant or probable cause, police and anyone else for that matter cannot just barge in. Thats one of the things this country was based on. End of story. I would have been furious.
  6. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:33 am
    Now THIS is something to get pissed about instead of showing a dumb receipt. The fact that TWO public officials have zero respect/knowledge of the law is an embarrassment. Good thing this gentleman recorded everything. I hope both officials are let go and this guy gets some type of settlement from the state of Indiana. No offense towards the people of Indiana but I`m kind of surprised the home owner didn`t start shooting at them :-P
  7. Profile photo of Ianislevi
    Ianislevi Male 18-29
    209 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:44 am
    These people won`t have a single excuse in court. Even the crappiest attorney in the world could win this case with ease. Both the lady and the deputy will be fired, for sure. This was no loophole. He is quoting the constitution and saying something along the lines of "You cannot trespass onto this property, because you don`t have a warrant"
    To get a legal warrant to enter someone`s private property against their wishes, you must have something to inspect with probable evidence. Their excuse was someone called. Can you convict someone as a murderer just because one witness says something without any evidence to back up his claim? No? Didn`t think so. A witness without proof is as useful as saying "I think he did it, but it`s just a hunch." This man has won the case already by making this video and quoting the constution, and continually refusing permission to enter.
  8. Profile photo of basketkase
    basketkase Male 18-29
    1183 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 2:49 am
    does any body know the story behind this
  9. Profile photo of larajunky
    larajunky Female 40-49
    1832 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:00 am
    I guess the batteries ran out, sure would have liked to see how it turned out ...
  10. Profile photo of lostinmexico
    lostinmexico Male 18-29
    44 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:07 am
    I truly hope that if this incident is recent, that it doesn`t go unnoticed and unpunished. If there`s one thing that pisses me off the most, it`s when people`s rights are trampled on - especially in this country. Uneducated, proud a**holes who care more about saving face than knowing what`s true and right. SOMEONE PLEASE SEND THIS VIDEO TO THE NEWS!!! Lots of major news stations dedicate portions of their porgramming to internet videos, especially outrageous videos such as this one. I think I`d love nothing more than to see those two smug idiots have their dumb faces plastered all over national TV. I know you`ll never read this but - step on a landmine, both of you.
  11. Profile photo of Cashcleaner
    Cashcleaner Male 18-29
    319 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:12 am
    I haven`t watched the video, but I`d like to clarify something.

    The police or certain government inspectors do not need a warrant if there is reasonable grounds to assume a crime has recently occured or is occuring that involves the subject individual. Yes, the police can`t just come onto your property and start poking around, but if there is reasonable grounds to do so they have all the authority to do so.

    Think of it this way: If you commit a crime two weeks ago and the police think you might have some stolen property in your house, they`ll go to a judge and get a warrant. If the cops are litteraly chasing you down and you run home to hide out in your basement, they have every right to knock down your door and make an arrest.

  12. Profile photo of tulip
    tulip Female 50-59
    250 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:13 am
    Property owner was a dick.
  13. Profile photo of agentkeg
    agentkeg Female 18-29
    61 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:22 am
    I would really like to know more about this. If anyone comes across with any more infro, do share.
  14. Profile photo of JaLacaob
    JaLacaob Male 18-29
    1647 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:23 am

    I agree with Cashcleaner and tulip.. Because of their job.. inspectors and/or police (protectors?) they don`t need a warrant on current probably cause. If they needed a warrant it might be too late by the time they get one.

    *shrug* I`d like to know if someone has a followup, tho.

  15. Profile photo of anime-craze
    anime-craze Male 18-29
    107 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:26 am
    what Cashcleaner says is right but as far as we know there was no crime or being chased by police. a neibor(sp?) or someone else called in and said there might be something wrong.

    if this did or does go to court i think this guy videotaping will win.

  16. Profile photo of JaLacaob
    JaLacaob Male 18-29
    1647 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:28 am
    From here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Sheriff-A... I got a reasonable response/followup..

    "I`ve tried finding out what happened and it would seem his property ended up being condemned. He was making an unauthorised septic tank as best as I can gather." of which there is a link within if you find the quote.
    Unfortunately, the link is from another unreliable source.. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cg...

    So you can make your own opinions.

  17. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:49 am
    ^JaLacaob....thanks for the info. An unauthorized septic tank would pose a threat to public safety. I guess it`s hard to say who is in the right when all you see is a video on the internet.
  18. Profile photo of JaLacaob
    JaLacaob Male 18-29
    1647 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:13 am

    ...frankly... I was sorta pissed at what an arrogant non-nice individual that guy was being.

    It frustrates me when people babble off the basic laws and expect to be in the right (and with such attitude) and don`t bother learning the ones like that inspector had on her side. XD

  19. Profile photo of scalawag
    scalawag Male 18-29
    160 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:37 am
    We hardly even know half the story.
  20. Profile photo of Tymberwulf
    Tymberwulf Male 30-39
    99 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:57 am
    From what I have been able to gather he was installing an illegal septic tank. Someone called the health department and she went to investigate. He refused, she did it anyway. And I haven`t found proof yet, but the end result was criminal charges were dropped, but he did not receive any compensation.

    If I find actual proof (this was gathered from like 5 different sites) I will post a link.

  21. Profile photo of chillywhack
    chillywhack Male 40-49
    161 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:02 am
    Police and public officials need one of four things to enter private property. The owners permission, probable cause (meaning, they can explain to a judge why it is reasonable to think a crime is being committed there), a warrant, or they are chasing a felon and they witness him go onto the property.
    And in my opinion, it doesn`t matter if the guy was arrogant or not. There`s lots of non-nice individuals in this country, yet we all have rights.
    If the lady had reason to believe an illegal septic system was being installed, then she should have said so when the guy asked repeatedly.
  22. Profile photo of Demondan
    Demondan Male 18-29
    98 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:40 am
    Hang on JaLacaob, how would you feel if some random woman came to your house and requested to walk around and poke through your things? Personally, I would not be to happy and/or inviting, and yes I too would probably come off as arrogant. She was completely in the wrong, if it was true that he was building an illegal septic tank, then she should have taken the right measures to deal with the matter.
    Remember, there is no immediate threat here and the sheriff allowed the trespass. Go get a warrant and do your job properly!
  23. Profile photo of EnlistedOne
    EnlistedOne Female 18-29
    18 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:58 am
    The camera man is right. The lady is breaking a constitutional law. Granted, he`s a bit emotional, but he is right and that`s all that matters. Her photographs are invalid and anything she records otherwise is also the same.

    I don`t like it that she`s so callous and that she thinks she owns his land and that the police official is ridiculously dumb. They`re public officals, they`re supposed to be just a smidgeon smarter than a bag of rocks.

  24. Profile photo of nescient1
    nescient1 Male 18-29
    521 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:19 am
    Rufifi
    Male, 13-17, Midwest US
    107 Posts Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:13:50 AM
    dang stop doing that and write about the post! lol
    -------------------------------------------------
    lmao cos you didn`t get first....narb

    and wtf was the point in the video?

  25. Profile photo of bondeggi
    bondeggi Male 30-39
    13 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:51 am
    the guy sort of seemed like comic book guy from the simpsons, however, they were without warrant and intruded on the property. Unless they had probable cause to believe a life was endangered, they just cant barge in like that. Now this has become viral, jobs will be lost
  26. Profile photo of icantthink41
    icantthink41 Male 18-29
    350 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 7:47 am
    why would a health inspectro want to check out his personal property? Any health inspector wants to check out my apartment can eat my fat ass.
  27. Profile photo of braddock1134
    braddock1134 Male 18-29
    4 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:07 am
    there are plenty of loopholes that allow warrentless searches, except this wasn`t a search. also everything that women was taking photos of was in plain view from the road which means the guy had no reasonable expectation of privacy to it. Whether he thought it was private or not. before any of you call out that she went behind his house and it couldn`t be see from the road I`ll point out that that doesn`t matter either. his property line falls on what appears to be an open field. there is something called the open field doctrine. it basically gives the cops permission to go out on those fields because no one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy on those fields. so if they can see something wrong on some guys property from the edge of his property line they can photograph it if they want too. plus if they see something illegal they can go arrest the guy and confiscate it. I`ll be honest unless its inside your house and away from the windows. you probably don`t have any rea
  28. Profile photo of braddock1134
    braddock1134 Male 18-29
    4 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:07 am
    reasonable expectation of privacy for it. the cops will win in the one i guarantee it.
    Remember just because you think its private and you think you have the expectation of privacy doesn`t make it so. If that guy had a big fence and signs saying keep out and all that then there would be a bigger problem,
    also if they believe he is causing a health problem that could effect other people then it would be considered an emergency situation and they could most certainly gain access to you property to prevent an emergency, you people hate cops so much you could give a drat that this guys a complete scum bag that could be hurting people even children with something he`s doing. Police don`t go out of there way to drat with innocent people. So if your speeding and you get a ticket, remember you did something wrong.
  29. Profile photo of MrRub
    MrRub Male 30-39
    2 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:20 am
    He`s quoting the constitution; that old thing! Democracy in America is dead; supplanted with Totalitarianism. Stop thinking, and embrace it. They will make are lives all better.
  30. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:27 am
    I agree that government officials need to have access, at times, to private property. However, don`t you think they should be able to say why they have that right in a particular circumstance?

    I mean, that ought to be a basic part of their job, to understand what their legal rights as officials are and aren`t. I`m not saying that anyone was in the right or wrong here, but I am saying that I expect public officials to know the law--way before I expect a private citizen to know the law.

    Just like with Circuit City Receipt Man, I think the public officials here were ignorant of the law and just assumed a right to access. And that really is a problem. They ought to either know they have a right, or go away until they do know. Assuming they have a right and backtracking after the fact can and does lead to erosion of our civil rights.

  31. Profile photo of robock
    robock Male 18-29
    317 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:31 am
    "If that guy had a big fence and signs saying keep out and all that then there would be a bigger problem,"
    Actually there IS a "no trespassing sign". Rewatch the begining of the video if you don`t remember it.

    And if they can see the property from the road, then they should photograph it from the road.

  32. Profile photo of robock
    robock Male 18-29
    317 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:38 am
    And if the guy have an illegal septic tank, than it is pure good luck that he did. What if he didn`t had one? Then the inspector would have been wrong to enter the property on a claim from a neighbour. And that is what I fear. That official breach into your house granting themselves access, and realize that you were inocent.

    And I don`t get it with all the cops saying if you have something to hide, then you must be a criminal. So if no one is a criminal, then we all have nothing to hide, which result in loss of privacy, because everything you have is public access.

  33. Profile photo of newbie4sale
    newbie4sale Female 18-29
    102 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:46 am
    omg, here we go again....same debate, different thread.
  34. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3282 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 8:56 am
    As braddock1134 said, the area inspected was in plain sight. Someone called and made a complaint. They pulled up and saw, from the road, in plain site, that some activity was going on. That gives them the right for a warrentless search of the area in plain sight. If they wanted to go inside the trailer, that would possibly be different, as it`s not in plain sight.

    Let`s say someone called the cops and said that he was growing pot on his property, mixed in with corn. The police pull up, without a warrent, to just ask some questions, and they say a corn crop on the property that is clearly posted No Trespassing, they will be able to make a case for probable cause in court, and will be able to cross the property line to check out the corn field without a warrent.

    Let`s say someone calls and says he`s growing pot in his basement. If they can see the pot from the road through a window, they can enter. If they pull up and can`t see the basement, they can`t.

  35. Profile photo of newbie4sale
    newbie4sale Female 18-29
    102 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:00 am
    "this guys a complete scum bag that could be hurting people even children with something he`s doing."

    Yes, this man could be hurting children! Oh, please think of the children!)-|

  36. Profile photo of Musika
    Musika Male 18-29
    10 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:12 am
    My response is based on what I saw in the video and the video alone.

    He was completely within his rights. They were completely wrong

  37. Profile photo of minitimm
    minitimm Male 18-29
    82 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:12 am
    All those who side with the property owner would have a different opinion if his illegal home made septic tank ran into your drinking water. Then we would have a slew of people saying"The government should have done something about this."
    I had a crazy neighbor once call CPS on me and mywife claiming we abuse our kids. The case worker came to the house, and requested to look around. I let her in, she looked around and spoke to the kids. She found no signs or evidence of abuse, and I have never seen the woman again. I could have refused, to which she would have returned with the police, causing a major scene. I`m sorry but if you have nothing to hide, what does it matter if they look around your property?
  38. Profile photo of Discomonkey
    Discomonkey Male 13-17
    1361 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:54 am
    this guy was within his rights not allowing them on his property without a warrant, simple as evne hive he had illegal weapons in his house i dont think they can come in, (did the full video not load for anyone else?)
  39. Profile photo of KikiPeepers
    KikiPeepers Female 30-39
    2247 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 10:05 am
    I love how the chick keeps looking at the cop, like `DO SOMETHING!`
  40. Profile photo of BabiiGirl93
    BabiiGirl93 Female 13-17
    441 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 10:35 am
    id be soooo pissed!!!! thats bs
    ...i cudnt have handled that as well as he did. id be kickin sum A$$ right then
  41. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:29 am
    Rick S said: "They pulled up and saw, from the road, in plain site, that some activity was going on. That gives them the right for a warrentless search of the area in plain sight."

    Seeing "activity" on private property gives the goverment the right to go check it out? Wow.

    There are several elements at play here. This is a constitutional question and, though it hurts the minds of the non-legal public to comprehend, its actually irrelevant what he was doing.

    THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY. An emergency is something like a fire, a bomb, a killer on the loose. Someone doing construction, even of a septic tank (if thats true) perhaps without proper permits does not constitute an emergency.

    BUT, this is actually in no way a clear case either way.

    1) Open Fields Doctrine. Someone above mentioned this, and they have a point. However, it could be argued that the area she trespassed was within the trailer home`s "curtilage."

  42. Profile photo of bigfatpig
    bigfatpig Male 18-29
    352 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:36 am
    Not watched this, but bet it`s one idiot telling another idiot something that the first idiot thought he knew but didn`t, then another idiot says something wrong to the first idiot, who tells the second idiot that actually he`s right when actually he is wrong. The third idiot then threatens the first idiot who then does something illegal.


    Hmmmmm, sounds brilliant. BLAH!

  43. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:36 am
    2) So whats a curtilage? Black`s law dictionary: "The land or yard adjoining a house, usu. within an enclosure. • Under the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage is an area usu. protected from warrantless searches."

    First, its USUALLY, not always, enclosed by a barrier. Is the ditch lining the road a barrier? Does that even matter? This property she took pictures of clearly adjoined his trailer.

    3) The cop was nervous. He knew deep in his cop soul that HE couldn`t trespass. He probably should have prevented that lady from trespassing until she had a warrent. She should have, after the coming out previously and being blocked, sought a court order. She probably could have gotten one in the interest of public health.

    4) EVEN THE HEALTH INSPECTOR WASN`T SURE. Otherwise, she would have had no problem giving her full name. Why hide it? She`s a public official. She should not act with deciet.

    I think this pivots on whether a court would accept that she entered his curtilage

  44. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:44 am
    I would have done the same thing he did. In fact, I may have argued to the cop that I have the right to use reasonable force to prevent a trespass (I can block her, even push her). Courts do support that notion actually. I wouldn`t strike her. But I would physically stop her.

    I do wish we had a credible report on what transpired legally after this.

  45. Profile photo of ImNoGod
    ImNoGod Male 18-29
    1149 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:54 am
    I watched the full 9 minutes.
    And nothing happened.

    It was just a fat cop and an annoying government worker being told to leave for 9 minutes by a dude who reads bills/ammendments/constitutions just to find loopholes, and anything that will benefit him if he gets into court.

    It`s not a loop hole you fu*ktard. It`s the forth amendment!!

  46. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:59 am
    A little more research yields the case of U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987). In that case, the Supreme Court listed 4 considerations to be made in determining the extent of someone`s curtilage, those considerations being: "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."
    So we see its a tough call. 1) The land was right next to his home, it actually touched it. 2) It was not enclosed. 3) It was his front yard 4) He did not take steps to conceal it.

    So, 2 factors suggest its a curtilage, 2 factors do not. A court would have to judge this one. Interesting real life case.

    An NO, mentioning the 4th Amendment of both his State and the US Constitution is not a LOOPHOLE, its a constitutionally guranteed right.

  47. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 12:13 pm
    In an article written by an FBI legal advisor, he states that "If the area in question is very close to the residence, that fact alone will likely cause the area to constitute curtilage."

    So, if I had to predict, I say she entered his curtilage for the purpose of a search without a warrent and without probable cause as supported by a warrent which states what is to be looked for and what property is to be searched.

    He seems to have a good case.

  48. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm
    Braddock, your expert legal analysis and gurantee notwithstanding, and ignoring your ignorance of the concept of curtilage, what exactly was in "plain view" that seemed suspect? Dirt piles? A backhoe? Some tubes? Are any of those things, either alone or together, illegal?

    Are you arguing in all instances of dirt piles, backhoes, and tubes on property, those things constitute probably cause for a search?

    Plain view arguements are all well and good, but what in plain view suggested illegality?

    A government agent, with the intent of inspecting and photographing property which probably is contained within a person`s curtilage, which even in plain view does not constitute an emergency or anything illegal, is NOT a SEARCH HOW????? Seriously, please expand on your arguement.

  49. Profile photo of Link740
    Link740 Male 13-17
    13 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 12:35 pm
    "Think of it this way: If you commit a crime two weeks ago and the police think you might have some stolen property in your house, they`ll go to a judge and get a warrant. If the cops are litteraly chasing you down and you run home to hide out in your basement, they have every right to knock down your door and make an arrest."

    You need a Warrent for their arrest too. There is no way you can bust into someone`s house without a warrent. Even if they just commited a murder, you cannot. If you listen to police officers before they enter, they knock and say "We have a warrent for your arrest, come out now, or we will use lethal force."

    Then if the person DOESN`T come out, they can break in.

    What this man did was not being a `Prick`, he was defending his right as an individual, and stating that unless those people had a warrent, signed by a judge, they could not enter, and if they did, he would have no choice but to sue.

    that`s the way life goes...

  50. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 1:02 pm
    "There is no way you can bust into someone`s house without a warrent. Even if they just commited a murder, you cannot."

    That`s not accurate. It falls under the category of exigent circumstances which allow cops to enter homes without a warrant.

    Blacks Legal Dictionary:
    exigent circumstances. 1. A situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual procedures, as when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside. 2. A situation in which a police officer must take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists, and thus may do so without first obtaining a warrant. • Exigent circumstances may exist if (1) a person`s life or safety is threatened, (2) a suspect`s escape is imminent, or (3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.

  51. Profile photo of DrFeelGood10
    DrFeelGood10 Male 18-29
    290 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 1:19 pm
    i don`t know who`s side i`m on. yeah, the property owner sounds like a total di.ck. But then i would be hella pissed if a fat cop and dirty lookin health inspector wanted to look around and wouldn`t leave. i wanted to punch her face through the screen >:|
  52. Profile photo of blackebony
    blackebony Female 13-17
    27 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:12 pm
    I think the worst part here was the cops justification for being able to walk onto the property w/o a warrent, "If you don`t want to let us on, then you obviously have something to hide (and you must be guilty)." That isn`t probable cause. Our freedom is in great danger if that ever becomes probable cause. Thats some 1984 poo right there. Scary.

    Besides, even if there was a call from a neighbor regarding an illegal septic tank, how hard would it really be to get a warrent?

  53. Profile photo of xavier687
    xavier687 Male 30-39
    3 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm
    THE REAL STORY BEHIND THIS VIDEO...
    The dude was installing a septic tank. Septic tanks have to be permitted, installed by professionals and issued a final inspection. The neighbors called the health department on him and he is trying to prevent himseld from getting fine and/or jailed. The dude is totally wrong and the health inspector has probable cause to enter the property, even if she doens`t tell hime what she is there for.

    Know your facts people before jump on board with the lynching mob.

  54. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm
    Well-observed blackebony.

    And to xavier687, it doesn`t matter whether he was doing something illegal or not. That is not the case. In fact, I personally believe he probably was installing an illegal septic tank.

    The case here is whether government officials were breaking the law.
    And since there was no immenent threat (bomb, killer, etc) and the health inspector did not have a warrant, she had no legal ground upon which to search his property.

    I believe that she should have been there to make sure that the drinking water wouldn`t be contaminated. But she should have done it properly to preserve the sanctity of privacy and law.

  55. Profile photo of XENOLITH
    XENOLITH Male 13-17
    80 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 3:58 pm
    OH MY GAWD THAT GUY IS AWESOME! That stupid hick cop and the retarded bitch need to drating learn about the constitution. I love that guy.
  56. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm
    *****The police or certain government inspectors do not need a warrant if there is reasonable grounds to assume a crime has recently occured or is occuring that involves the subject individual. Yes, the police can`t just come onto your property and start poking around, but if there is reasonable grounds to do so they have all the authority to do so.*******

    Cashcleaner, you are an idiot, and are mixing up two completely different laws. Reasonable Grounds are not required, the term is "probable cause" where in a bureaucratic system irrelevant of oppinions within the system, (such a a HUNCH) requires reliable short term evidence that a crime is taking place.

    The reliable evidence part is directly legally applicable and is the key thing to remember here. The only thing that constitutes reliable evidence is seeing something that looks illegal or IS illegal.

    The inspector (government official), has NO reliable evidence to shows a crime was taking place.

  57. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:42 pm
    The worst part is now that I think about it, that she CAME BACK, this directly violates the "recent" element of probable cause in such a blatant way it makes this second violation bigger than the first.

    *****Think of it this way: If you commit a crime two weeks ago and the police think you might have some stolen property in your house, they`ll go to a judge and get a warrant. If the cops are literaly chasing you down and you run home to hide out in your basement, they have every right to knock down your door and make an arrest.****

    Anyway you are mixing up two different laws, there is another which says if a crime is being committed the officer can go ahead and deal with the crime, however no crime was being committed. This is referred to as a crime in progress.

    Again a call from a RANDOM person is the OPPOSITE of RELIABLE EVIDENCE to Indicate the commission of a crime.

    The fact the government CAME BACK means the situation is the OPPOSITE of recent. Blatant crime.

  58. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:51 pm
    Furthermore for those that bring up that INSPECTORS have the "power of entry" to follow through on their reasonable inspection duties, and they have this power above police officers to enter without a warrant, it`s important to note that those laws are only in effect in the UNITED KINGDOM and not in UNITED STATES, in the USA you need a warrant bar none unless the crime is recent and you have reliable indicators to prove it is happening.
  59. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 4:54 pm
    No one here claims to be a lawyer, so we`re all just guessing. But to me, in all of this, the two people who should be REQUIRED to actually know the law and not be guessing (the two government workers--cop and health inspector) did not know the law. The cop just bumbled around with anti-logic ("well, if you don`t got noth`n to hide...")and the health inspector wouldn`t even state her name or what she was doing there. I mean, WTF was up with that?!

    If they new the law, they could`ve walked up with whatever they needed or didn`t need (warrant or whatever) and informed the property owner of why they were there and what his rights were and what they were not. The fact that they didn`t and couldn`t is inexcusable. Just being a cop or government employee does not make you right!

  60. Profile photo of khendri3
    khendri3 Female 18-29
    34 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:19 pm
    okay this is stupid the cop shoulda just left and gotten a warrent if he thought he could, the only reason to ME that he wouldn`t is either he`s stupid or he thinks there is no probable cause... i feel sad that this guy was BADLY HARASSED
  61. Profile photo of khendri3
    khendri3 Female 18-29
    34 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:20 pm
    plus they were being just plain rude... they wouldn`t talk to him.. i think they were stupidified! omg actually someone standing up for their rights!
  62. Profile photo of KeVsTeR2475
    KeVsTeR2475 Male 13-17
    1841 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:23 pm
    "...2 days after, he later died from the excessive fumes of marijuana hidden inside the spetic tank... read more"

    i can just sooooooooooooo imagine that

  63. Profile photo of hitman03
    hitman03 Male 13-17
    9 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 5:51 pm
    Why is it that whenever I see any American cop or offical they`re always trying to throw their weight around and look big?
  64. Profile photo of Alanda
    Alanda Female 18-29
    295 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:01 pm
    Even if she had a real reason to be there, she was still annoying and rude......also, if she works for the government, she should know better and have a warrant. Since she wouldn`t state her name, I think the man has the right to know her purpose of being there.
  65. Profile photo of ranon
    ranon Male 18-29
    295 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:16 pm
    If you listen closely to the start of the video, it says that the date is Nov 22. So this is at least a year old.

    I believe that this person has exhausted all legal and other options (TV) before trying to post this on the internet.

  66. Profile photo of Deadman3215
    Deadman3215 Male 18-29
    536 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:47 pm
    I don`t know the whole story, but regardless he probably would lose the case just by saying "You`re getting me rich right now." The Judge would probably dismiss the case on the grounds that he knew a crime was being committed and took no *serious* action because he thought he would get "rich" from it.
  67. Profile photo of bandits1111
    bandits1111 Female 18-29
    152 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm
    derangedingo:
    I watched the full 9 minutes.
    And nothing happened.

    It was just a fat cop and an annoying government worker being told to leave for 9 minutes by a dude who reads bills/ammendments/constitutions just to find loopholes, and anything that will benefit him if he gets into court.

    Loophole? Loophole?!? What are they teaching you in schools these days and/or what are you not learning? Laws are not made to be broken by anyone. The more you water down the law (ie-it`s ok to do this here, here and here) the more the law becomes meaningless.

    No, this did not pose an immediate threat to the health and welfare of anyone. She would have had the time to get a warrant as she was there the day before and didn`t just jump out of her seat when she got the call from his neighbor. She had the time, he`s not a terrorist (and I mean that literally according to the law) and there are pictures she could take with a higher powered camera from the road.

  68. Profile photo of bandits1111
    bandits1111 Female 18-29
    152 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 7:06 pm
    She then goes to the judge and says here is probable cause. The judge goes here`s your warrant and then the cavalry comes to this guy`s house to fine him for not getting the proper paperwork to build a septic tank. That`s the end of the American story at least. Government officials shouldn`t dabble in grey areas of the law they are sworn to uphold.
  69. Profile photo of Liquidglass
    Liquidglass Male 18-29
    1111 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm
    CashCleaner: The police and/or certain government officials DO NOT have the right to trespass unless they are there to make an arrest or they have chased someone onto the property, they had no probable cause. They also have no authority to inspect further than things "in plain view" if they have to move something or they can`t see it from the road too bad.

    Snoogans: I`d actually like to see him shoot at them, but that constitutes use of `deadly force` which is against federal law unless the situation calls for the extreme defense of such.


  70. Profile photo of Liquidglass
    Liquidglass Male 18-29
    1111 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 7:49 pm
    JaLacaob: Sorry you guys are all wrong, they did for that situation
    braddock1134: if it was in plain view from the road a closer inspection would not be needed, they didn`t know what was going on, so thus the inspection. Also does not matter where his property line is, it was marked clearly by `no trespassing` signs which is as good as a wall. They went ON his property, not the edge, and they can`t enter unless there is a certain reason, which they just had suspision.

    Rick S: I`ll refer you to the above retorts.


    minitimm: Oh you mean besides the septic waste that the government put into water to test for drugs, google it.
    if there had been intervention with water lines they would have had more than "hey somebody called, there might be something going on"

  71. Profile photo of mphat
    mphat Male 30-39
    1 post
    September 8, 2007 at 8:36 pm
    for those of you who think that the health inspector is fine in what she is doing your are WRONG, hello 4th ammendment or do you even know what the hell that is.
  72. Profile photo of RickLeasure
    RickLeasure Male 50-59
    2 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm
    If the law is abused by those who are supposed to uphold it, what hope do we have of justice. If a man trespasses on our property without due authority or reason as specified by the law, what recourse do we have to protect our property if the deputy/sheriff protects the trespasser?

    It`s ironic and sad to realize the real criminals in this case were the governmental representatives.

  73. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:18 pm
    Furthermore for those that bring up that INSPECTORS have the "power of entry" to follow through on their reasonable inspection duties, and they have this power above police officers to enter without a warrant, it`s important to note that those laws are only in effect in the UNITED KINGDOM and not in UNITED STATES, in the USA you need a warrant bar none unless the crime is recent and you have reliable indicators to prove it is happening.
  74. Profile photo of Mweebles
    Mweebles Female 18-29
    1653 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm
    umm... 30 seconds of cars parked and a guy mumbling...and I Xed out. :)
  75. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm
    Liquidglass....LOL, we can dream can`t we :-P Hey just a quick question for you since you are in law school. I read somewhere that police, inspectors and the such do have a right to go onto your property if they suspect something (valid probable cause) without a warrant, they just can`t enter your house without one. Any truth to that?
  76. Profile photo of jhonmayer1
    jhonmayer1 Male 18-29
    1289 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 10:04 pm
    ...what was he HIDING?
    hmmm...
  77. Profile photo of Roduku
    Roduku Male 50-59
    459 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:28 pm
    I know this has been hashed over pretty well.. and, I might add, I`m impressed. I don`t usually find a mindful discussion on IAB.

    Anyway, here`s my interpretation:
    Apparently, the man was installing a septic system on his property. I don`t know the laws concerning septics in Indiana, but I suspect he needed a permit and didn`t have one. This is where he was in the wrong. He should have had the required permits.
    The health inspector found out he might be installing a septic without a permit and came to investigate. She was denied access to the property. This is where she went wrong.
    Instead of trying to force her way onto the property, she should have gone to where ever the permit records are kept and checked to see if one was on file. If not, she could then go to a judge and request a warrant to go in and see if he was actually installing as septic.

  78. Profile photo of Roduku
    Roduku Male 50-59
    459 posts
    September 8, 2007 at 11:29 pm
    Laws are written for a reason. They are the instructions for orderly conduct in a civilized society. No one is above the law, including government officials.

    Vote Ron Paul.

  79. Profile photo of dragosal
    dragosal Male 18-29
    1630 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 12:47 am
    look all of this bullpoo supporting that bitch is dumb if only this was in ny he woulda had the right to beat her senseless for trespassing as long as he stopped once she tried to run :P
  80. Profile photo of Liquidglass
    Liquidglass Male 18-29
    1111 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 12:48 am
    Hey snoogans, thanks for taking the comment in good humor.

    it`s only if they see something going on or know pretty close to a fact that something is

    For instance: if a cop sees you doing something obviously illegal then yes they have the right, but if they see something that is suspect, for instance in plain view you`re hauling a body bag around, not illegal to do, but they have the right to look at what`s going on. so the right is there, but it`s limited. Like if there is a fence that no ordinary person can see over, then nothing is in plain sight.

    Here is an interesting tidbit, there have been cases where cops have looked through peoples trash. Which at first seems illegal and it`s one of those big points of contention but the trash was on the curb for the trash company to pick up and they had good reasonable suspension but they wanted hard evidence to get a warrant. So the question is, is it the person`s property after they put it out on public property for disposal?

  81. Profile photo of tracykay
    tracykay Female 18-29
    3 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 1:06 am
    Regardless of what they were looking for these “government officials” are completely unaware of the constitutional rights granted to individuals. Just makes you infuriated with the entire system. Jobs should be lost for this clear ineptitude. If it was indeed an illegal septic tank installation, then she should have used the proper channels to receive a warrant to enter the property. The fact that the Deputy advised her to go ahead onto the property and stood there (noticeably just outside the property line) while she clearly trespassed, is an outrage. These are the people our tax dollars pay to protect our constitutional rights. Granted the property owner was not the most well-spoken or pleasant individual, but his rights were clearly violated.
  82. Profile photo of CoffeeTalk
    CoffeeTalk Male 40-49
    193 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 1:21 am
    I guess it would still be "uncomprehensible and unconstitutional" if they uncovered those 11 bodies he was burying right before they pulled up? Screw the law, they were there for a good reason, he is a serial killer and doesn`t abide y the laws except when they protect him. I wish he`d sue me, I am flat broke and need the publicity to sell my story to CNN!
  83. Profile photo of HIRED_GUN
    HIRED_GUN Male 18-29
    15 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 1:22 am
    IThere are so many errors in what most of you wrote that I couldn`t possibly explain it. Goalie, even though you`re using Black`s, you were the closest.Fact is, reasonable articulable suspicion applies only to laws that fall within the specific enforcement official`s authorized powers. A septic system install, which does NOT always have to be installed by an expert depending on jurisdiction, is usually a zoning issue, one for which a deputy has zero authority. She is not enforcement or would have identification with arrest authority on it.Fact is, they were not permitted on this man`s property for any reason under these circumstances, curtilage or otherwise.Plain view doctrine is ambiguous, but just about all precedent dictates a warrant. Proper procedure for her would have been to go to the magistrate/d.j./justice of the peace and swear out an affidavit hoping a judge would issue a warrant.She couldn`t do that here or she wouldn`t still be investigating and photographing things.
  84. Profile photo of tracykay
    tracykay Female 18-29
    3 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 2:00 am
    There was “No Trespassing” signs posted and plainly visible to both officials. This makes it a criminal act upon entering the property without the consent or knowledge of the property owner. The Deputy is clearly aware of this, hence his standing just outside the property line. It would be interesting to get a hold of the county/state statutes and see if she does indeed have to right to enter the property and supersede the owner’s wishes. It seems strange that the Deputy would not enter the property without a warrant, but yet a Health Inspector (an appointed official with seemingly no real legal knowledge) is allowed open access to private property. If there was any imminent public health risk the Inspector would have the proper paperwork, including a warrant to enter the premises. I truly hope he continues with legal action. Apart from whether or not he had the proper permit, this creates a very slippery slope legally as to a person’s constitutional right ag
  85. Profile photo of tracykay
    tracykay Female 18-29
    3 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 2:00 am
    Apart from whether or not he had the proper permit, this creates a very slippery slope legally as to a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
  86. Profile photo of Orkray
    Orkray Male 13-17
    85 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 8:30 am
    "I agree with Cashcleaner and tulip.. Because of their job.. inspectors and/or police (protectors?) they don`t need a warrant on current probably cause. If they needed a warrant it might be too late by the time they get one."

    That`s the law though.

  87. Profile photo of
    v_wilkes85
    246 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 9:45 am
    trust `buddy` to post something like this. He`d post poo, while denying pure gold.
  88. Profile photo of newbie4sale
    newbie4sale Female 18-29
    102 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    Yeah, between this and the Circuit City guy, Buddy seems a bit riled up on civil rights lately. But then again, these topics always attract the most posts.

    Anyways, the health inspector should`ve gotten a warrant if she wanted to go onto his property. If the septic tank was clearly visible from the road, she should just take pictures from there.

  89. Profile photo of Neagle
    Neagle Male 30-39
    1405 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm
    Follow the law, get a court order and enter the property legally. Ignorant, lazy, public health inspector would not be working during the weekend anyway so there is no reason not to get a court order. Police officer should have never allowed the trespass to occur. The property owner is most likely installing an illegal septic tank but, evidence could have been gathered with a telephoto lens or even on the complaining property owners residence, with permission, of course. One of our country mens rights are violated, all of our rights are violated. One thing to remember though, had this been a licensed business public inspectors have the right to enter the premises at any time during working hours to investigate a complaint or to cunduct a legal inspection.
  90. Profile photo of Queen_Jay
    Queen_Jay Female 18-29
    241 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 2:31 pm
    true that the guy has a the right to refuse entrance to his property without probable cause/ a warrant, but...
    we don`t know the whole story!
    Why was this inspector lady called out there?
    for all we know the neighbors reported seeing this guy burying bodies or something like that!
    IF ANYONE HAS THE REAL STORY LET US KNOW~
  91. Profile photo of Miss_Candie
    Miss_Candie Female 13-17
    260 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 4:17 pm
    i hope he`ll sue their asses
  92. Profile photo of Gnarkill07
    Gnarkill07 Male 18-29
    122 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 4:58 pm
    he should have just shot her in the leg or something
  93. Profile photo of Silver
    Silver Female 18-29
    26 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 5:05 pm
    On 9/9/2007 9:45:05 AM v_wilkes85 wrote: trust `buddy` to post something like this. He`d post poo, while denying pure gold.
    Buddy isn`t the one who approves/disapproves stuff. Your theory is poop.
  94. Profile photo of Bluedot34
    Bluedot34 Male 18-29
    300 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 6:38 pm
    Agreed with Roduku. She should take her lazy ass and do her job the correct way. See if there are permits in place and go visit the judge for a warrant.

    I hope he wins the suit. But if he is in fact installing an illegal tank, then he is a hyprocrit for spouting legal this and that and not following the laws.

  95. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 7:24 pm
    Liquidglass...thanks for the info. I would think that ones trash,if it is out on the curb, is public property and not private. Especially if the police were looking for a murder weapon or something. I`ve had homeless people going through my trash looking for bottles and such. I guess that`s why they tell you to always shred your personal information for reasons such as this. So many laws that it`s too confusing at times. I guess I just try to keep my nose clean or at least not get caught! It`s only illegal if they catch you....LOL :-P
  96. Profile photo of adf14e
    adf14e Female 13-17
    31 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 7:46 pm
    no he will lose a health inspector does not need a warrant. Take resurtants for an example a health inspector can walk right in an investigate with out a warrent.
    and Public safety always overrides individual rights
  97. Profile photo of Quick350z28
    Quick350z28 Male 18-29
    6 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 9:21 pm
    I like how, in the middle of the man explaining his constitutional rights to the officer, the officer says "Well if you have nothing to hide, just cooperate with her.." as if the constitution was solely written for those who have done things wrong and need to hide behind a document. It was written to protect the rights of all, not just the guilty you friggin idiot.
  98. Profile photo of dragosal
    dragosal Male 18-29
    1630 posts
    September 9, 2007 at 11:39 pm
    "no he will lose a health inspector does not need a warrant. Take resurtants for an example a health inspector can walk right in an investigate with out a warrent.
    and Public safety always overrides individual rights "
    thats not completely true adf a resturant is not private property like a home is really.
  99. Profile photo of Rain7
    Rain7 Male 18-29
    140 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 12:24 am
    hahaha...i think this is funny...although i think they do need a warrant...but still...this guy was being a dumbchit...."im moving dirt around"....nooo...he`s buring dead bodies...lol...id let that cute girl in...so what big deal...right?
  100. Profile photo of bmachine82
    bmachine82 Male 18-29
    30 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm
    Okay lets get one thing straight Sheriffs and Health inspectors don`t go around looking for places to stop and inspect. If they where going on to his property on video, chances are really good there was visible probable cause that could be seen from the street.This also leads me to believe this is why she was taking pictures of everything that could be seen from the street to prove probable cause.
  101. Profile photo of malloryah
    malloryah Female 18-29
    14 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm
    All the inspector would have to do is go and get a warrent or some sort of documentation explaining what she needed to do. Why did she feel that she was above this man and didn`t need to explain herself and provide documents is crazy to me. Even if he is doing something wrong, there must be checks and balances. Thank you to this guy for working to protect the rights of everyone, even if some people think we are all better off to act as cattle.
  102. Profile photo of Squall_L33t
    Squall_L33t Male 18-29
    45 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm
    malloryah, you said it best.
  103. Profile photo of Liquidglass
    Liquidglass Male 18-29
    1111 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 8:43 pm
    bmachine82: your post leads me to believe, you`re retarded.
  104. Profile photo of ScreamLow
    ScreamLow Male 18-29
    1 post
    September 10, 2007 at 10:08 pm
    Actually i was pissed at first that this was allowed to happen, but then i realized that we weren`t getting the full story and something didn`t seem right. why would someone just be "moving a little dirt around?" so i did a little research. Turns out the guy was installing an illegal septic tank, and whats more, she did have the right to enter the property. here is the definition of trespassing from the law.com law dictionary: Trespassing. it does say in specific that health inspectors do have lawful authority to enter a property. it seems unconstitutional but it is to protect the other citizens in the area.
  105. Profile photo of Robinski9
    Robinski9 Female 30-39
    67 posts
    September 10, 2007 at 10:53 pm
    Trespassing or no, would you want this guy as a neighbor? I think the HUGE frickin` digger in the backyard provided reasonable cause for the inspection and as noted by many before - no warrant needed. This guys neighbors all probably hate him for dragging down the property values by turning his trailor into the worlds largest non-functioning toilet. Why are all the people `fighting for out rights` always moronic schizos anyway?
  106. Profile photo of Liquidglass
    Liquidglass Male 18-29
    1111 posts
    September 11, 2007 at 1:35 am
    ScreamLow: No crap man everyone else has been saying the same thing. However it is illegal for them to enter without probable cause or given reason.
  107. Profile photo of derfman
    derfman Male 30-39
    99 posts
    September 11, 2007 at 2:11 am
    I can tell you this....

    There wouldve been a dead Health Inspector had that been my property. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TRESSPASS. Period!! And yes the cop wouldve stood by and watched just like he watched her break the law hed see some southern justice with a double barrel 12 gauge..... >-(
    I hope this guy becomes a MULTI MILLIONARE out of this.

  108. Profile photo of KitsumiMaru
    KitsumiMaru Male 18-29
    34 posts
    September 13, 2007 at 8:07 pm
    Huge digger or PROPOSED illegal septic tank, what right does the health inspector have to intervene? unless she had a warrant that was a totally illegal trespass, if she had gone to the courts with the probable cause, i.e: a huge digger and earth moving equipment SUGGESTING an illegal septic tank, then yes she would have been in the right. the man on the film said several times he would be ok with a warrant, he also requested several times that they leave his property without trespass to get a court order. whats wrong with gpvernment officials these days, do they think they own us all?? are we all guilty before the fact?
  109. Profile photo of KitsumiMaru
    KitsumiMaru Male 18-29
    34 posts
    September 13, 2007 at 8:11 pm
    also, the rights given to a health inspector are tort laws, which have to be proven as being harmful to another`s body, property, or legal rights, or to breach a duty owed under statutory law, either way, she needed a warrant, trust me, i`m english, we invented the law
  110. Profile photo of adf14e
    adf14e Female 13-17
    31 posts
    September 15, 2007 at 3:12 am
    State of Indiana Vs Robert Trimble, appeal from Jennings Superior Court Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court....... Indiana State Supreme court ruled officer seeing crime / evidence from public that any public citizen could see, investigating a tip of a crime, including parking car in driveway to walk to the home, is allowed to without a warrant enter the premises ( yard ) to investigate further. Court further states that officer entry onto private property and their observations do not violate fourth amendment when they have a legitimate investigatory purpose for being on the property limiting their entry to places visitors would be expected to go. Indiana Supreme court decided ruled on this type situation 02-21-2006. Also mentions timely tip from a person and health / safety of others.
    he lost hard. the moron is hoping people like you do not care about public safety. Guys what if the story was someone died because he did not install it right. What you would you say?
  111. Profile photo of adf14e
    adf14e Female 13-17
    31 posts
    September 15, 2007 at 3:39 am
    http://indianalawblog.com/
  112. Profile photo of adf14e
    adf14e Female 13-17
    31 posts
    September 15, 2007 at 3:54 am
    and more (Indiana bill of rights} Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue,(this part tight here) but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. no warrant needed.

  113. Profile photo of 48104
    48104 Female 13-17
    2 posts
    November 7, 2007 at 9:22 am
    Technically, he doesn`t have a right to refuse. When it comes to health inspections, the government has implied consent to search your property if there is a reasonable suspicion that you have a health hazard on your property that could harm others. :]

Leave a Reply