US Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America
“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, and the persons or things to be seized.” en.wikipedia.org caselaw.lp.findlaw.com Some dumb Indiana Sheriff sits back and does absolutely nothing while an even dumber health inspector trespasses on private property without a warrant. I hope both these people got fired because this guy couldnt be more correct about his constitutional rights to privacy. Smart of him to get it all on film. _____________________________ Laporte County Health Dept Julie Wolfe 809 State St. Suite 401A Laporte, In 46350 (219)326-6808 ext 200. Fax (219)325-8628 DEPUTY CADE COOPER SERVING SINCE 2004 Address: 809 State Street Suite 202A LaPorte, Indiana 46350 Phone LaPorte Office Number: 219-326-7700 _________________________________________ Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was originally designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be …
US Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America
@DavidForthoffer Like it or not, you HAVE been challenged by myself and others, and you have failed to rise to the challenge and demonstrate how outside of your “opinion” the government did not exceed it’s authority, and violate this citizens 4th Amendment rights. You never have and you never will, even if you stay here another 2 years trying to give all the disinfo in the world to the random people that happen to stop by, and comment in outrage at what they know with common sense govt abuse.
@DavidForthoffer Your motto should be if you can’t beat them, ignore them and pretend like you beat them anyway, because after I have clearly demonstrated numerous problems with your opinion on this matter, as have others, even showing you the REQUIREMENT by the IN code for a health inspector to have a warrant, the property owner in person demanding recognition of his expectation of privacy, curtilage being determined by the court and on and on, you just ignore and continue on as if unchallenged
@DavidForthoffer You carefully word your responses to people as if your cookie cut “fields” case, and the application of how YOU choose to apply it here and hand down YOUR ruling that this case is “decided” by you, is all a settled matter, and you have the answer. The truth is, you don’t have the answer, can NEVER MAKE the DUNN case apply by your declaration, and cannot answer the other various factors that clearly make this one different, as they always are, so you ignore those factors.
@DavidForthoffer To suggest with the wording “therefore” that there exist NO 4th Amendment protection without a fence, or, that the “fields doctrine” applies as you desire to cookie cut and apply it, when there are many other factors at play here, shows that you have no answer to those other factors, such as the property owner in person denying permission for the government to enter and “inspect”, (search), his property, and then seize it, without a warrant, even as he demands one.
@DavidForthoffer Everything you said except, “therefore” is correct. 1st, curtilage exist, fence or no fence, and that metric is only a tool designed for a case where the home may sit on large parcels of land, (which the “fields” portion have been held to NOT be protected), while in this case, not only is the property smaller, she very likely enters the curtilage, (although never determined in court), as she nearly bumps the house at one point, BUT, expectation of privacy exist and is demanded.
@zpplezlen: Aside from discouraging entry onto your property, a big fence surrounding your home that blocks both access and view goes a long way toward making the area inside ‘curtilage’ and therefore protected by the 4th Amendment.
I agree fence and pit bulls would work well lol
By the way it is = no more trespass =)
Here is a tip build a fence get 5 or 10 BIG DOGS!!! Or more and if they try to trespass again they will have 10 BIG DOGS over them and then they can’t say that they where not on your property. Because you have a fence that keep’s the BIG DOGS on your property. =)
@neoconsnightmare3 Some “proof” is only evident to those exercising their own common sense, and a desire for the Constitution to have its full force and effect of restraining the government against the people….
@neoconsnightmare3 No changes are necessary, as I have clearly stated.
@neoconsnightmare3 The 4th Amendment is absolutely clear that there exist an expectation of privacy, and since that is clear in all supreme court rulings, including your precious, albeit misapplied “fields doctrine”, it only goes to show that when the property owner is actually present, insisting on his privacy, that your crack pot theories about fields is nothing but a bunch of misapplied nonsense……Having said that, I can admit, (unlike many here) this hasn’t been decided in court.
@neoconsnightmare3 “We’re now” engaging in a pissing contest? LOL Um, you’ve been doing nothing else all along. The major difference is that while you only refer to opinion, and speculation while misapplying other case law and improper legal definitions, I have spelled out in detail why you are wrong, and specific citations that explain the reasoning behind those sentiments.
@neoconsnightmare3 Yeah, all that nonsense is nice and maybe makes you feel better to say it, but it doesn’t matter how old this case is, nor why it was “thrown out”, the various elements that make it interesting to all of us here have never been heard in court. It’s that simple.
As for standing up for another citizens rights and proclaiming that its “his problem, not mine”, somehow that doesn’t surprise me at all….
@neoconsnightmare3 Nope, it’s your misunderstanding and youve given nothing but opinion to rebut that fact….I on the other hand have given many, many citations, logical reasons, and other explanations of why you are wrong, and you have yet to ever address them directly except to say it’s “opinion” or for you to change what you need to change in order to make your “theories” work.
Just a clue, but they don’t work….
@neoconsnightmare3 And that “opinion” by you is revealing and disturbing and it goes to show how “training” is dangerous when it replaces “education”….
These are the sort of “legalistic” sentiments that allowed American Citizens to be “interned” in camps, (by law), and Jews to have their property confiscated, and them to be interned, (by German law), while many, many good German and American people stood by and undoubtedly said, (well, it’s the law).
@lantsurfer and the government ‘overstepping its bounds’ everyday isn’t necessarily what went on HERE. there’s no proof that any level of government overstepped its bounds here (and none to say they haven’t).
@lantsurfer no, we dont have to necessarily go all the way up to the supreme court to change laws. thats why i said ‘propositions’ . if the people of the state dont like laws, or want them to be more clear, all they have to do is introduce a proposition to change/clarify the law (like gay marriage in massachussetts and california). let the people vote.
for an amendment, if they want something (like ERA in the 70s) it just has to pass 3/4 of all state assemblies, and then the feds.
@lantsurfer no, the 4th is not ‘clear’ about land being covered, when it doesnt mention land. i don’t ‘have’ to keep ‘any theory alive’. that may be your opinion, but i say it’s not. where does it end?
the video is not clear that there are/are not any exigent circumstances. the defendant videotaped what he wanted.
for sure, she was not walking in his house, nor on any fenced portion of his land that may be considered part of the everyday life of the occupants of that home.
@lantsurfer no, you’ve not ‘proven’ my statements were wrong. you only proved that you disagree and that your opinion on the laws, the case, are different. so be it.
you haven’t even gone a ‘long way’ to prove anything, so MY opinion says.
we’re now engaging in a pissing contest.
@lantsurfer maybe someone will get his case heard again. maybe pigs will grow wings and fly.
what IS sure is this case is now 4 years old, and there doesnt seem to be anything on the record to indicate that someone with means will take his case up.
i can comfortably ‘accept’ the courts actions in his case because:
1) i don’t live in indiana (i’m from chicago, where we tend to have contempt for that state. lol);
2) don’t live in the states currently;
3) his problem, not mine.
@lantsurfer you’re not pointing out ho i misunderstand my rights…you’re giving your opinion on how you THINK i allegedly ‘misunderstand my rights’.
it’s your right to opine on a complete strangers ability/lack of ability to understand his rights. and i say you’re mistaken.
@lantsurfer lantsurfer, then at least we agree that we dont know the true specifics of the case. you think there may have been some 4th amendment violations (right?). i think not. one things for sure: we dont know whether the COURTS thought so or not.
the government (all levels) does overstep its’ authority, but that may / may not be the case here. certainly, it’s my opinion that the video does not show her violating any of mr. kirkus’ 4th amendment violations.
@neoconsnightmare3 No, it’s not “my opinion” it’s the 4th Amendment, which is very clear about the issue. You choose to ignore the 4th Amendment, (because you must to keep your theory alive), and say that you’re gonna use a “changed” and “improvised” definition of exigent circumstances, (because you must to keep your theory alive), when it has been pointed out to you any number of ways why you are wrong, and you just refuse to accept it. The video is clear. No exigent circumstances.
@neoconsnightmare3 Oh you need saving for sure! LOL I and others while maybe not “proving” we are right, have certainly gone a very long way to prove the assertions you make are WRONG! You just never address those factors directly, and instead change definitions, and misapply other cases as if they can be cookie cut to make this incident a decided and settled fact, even though it differs in many ways, and people including myself have pointed all of this out repeatedly.