Search Tags:

Categories:

Health Inspector



Uploaded by: texteditor
Video Description:
Incident in Indiana where a health inspector trespasses on private property while law enforcement looks on.


Tags for this video: Freedom Health Indiana Inspector Law Liberty Martial Property Rights Sheriff Tyranny

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by texteditor

Related Videos
4th Amendment- How to catch an illegal search and seizureThe Health InspectorNo Warrant, No Search!
4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html
Screw the fourth amendment in Boston.I'm sorry Officer!!!Health Inspector, Undercover
4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html4th-amendment-how-to-catch-an-illegal-search-and-seizure.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
The guy with the ... ( 2 months ago by DavidForthoffer)
The guy with the camera does not sound like a nut case to me.
He sounds like a guy who firmly believes the Fourth Amendment protects all private property, not just "houses, persons, papers, and effects".
Well I have read it ... ( 1 month ago by Keys1337)
Well I have read it. And if you read the dissenting opinion, then that's pretty much where I'm coming from. And to keep saying it is all about the home is ridiculous and a tactic used by those wishing to erode the 4th. The 4th clearly now and has historically applied to offices, factories, labs, cars, boats, lockers etc. You say that they didn't decide in that case regarding fences vs wall, but that thinking is clearly being weighed in the decision. The nature of the enclosure is very important.
I certainly ... ( 1 month ago by DavidForthoffer)
I certainly sympathize with some dissenting opinions in certain cases, but when the question is the legality of an act, it is the majority opinion that counts.
Certainly the nature of the enclosure is very important, as indicated by the four factors in Dunn. I do not see how applying the Fourth Amendment to factories, etc., erodes its protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects", though it may erode a later expansion of it.
Where's the dogs ... ( 1 month ago by cometepiace)
Where's the dogs when you need'em! Trained that is.
911missingLinks. ... ( 1 month ago by MinkMink999)
911missingLinks. com
Is this related to whats happeneing in this video?
Wow this is awful! ... ( 3 weeks ago by SilverNova13)
Wow this is awful! I would've cuffed the lady. I hope you were able to sue her for all she was worth!
The lady and the ... ( 3 weeks ago by DavidForthoffer)
The lady and the sheriff did not break any laws. The videographer was evicted for health code violations.
she should be ... ( 2 weeks ago by chromedreamz)
she should be sodimized publically.
where's that Horn guy in Texas when you need him
btw, what happened in the end?
@Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
@Davidforthoffer maybe not any laws but they DID violate this man's 4th Amendment rights. Maybe you should consult your local ACLU chapter as you DO NOT seem understand your 4th amendment rights.
0Latitude, they did ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
0Latitude, they did NOT violate the videographer's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn to understand why the areas she entered were not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
@Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
@Davidforthoffer You are incorrect. "open fields" doctrine has been expanded to include ALMOST any open space OTHER than the land immediately surrounding a domicile.
@Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
@Davidforthoffer You might also look at OUR natural rights. Remember, he had "No Trespassing" signs in PLAIN VIEW. Private Property: (12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including: (1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded. (3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
0Latitude, you need ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
0Latitude, you need to read and understand United States v. Dunn to better understand which areas near a domicile are protected. THEN you can intelligently discuss THIS issue in terms of the four factors given by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes, 0Latitude, "No ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
Yes, 0Latitude, "No Trespassing" signs are relevant in this case. A person entering private property, especially one posted with "No Trespassing" signs, needs legal justification for entering.
In this case, the legal justification is Indiana Code 16-20-1-23, which allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. That is why the sheriff was not allowed to enter the property, until it appeared the lady was in danger of being assaulted.
Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
Davidforthoffer CURTILAGE DEFINED As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in United States v. Dunn, 1. curtilage is the area immediately surrounding a residence that ``harbors the `intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.''' 2. Curtilage, like a house, is protected under the fourth amendment from ``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' 3. Determining the boundaries of curtilage, however, is considerably more problematic than fixing the limits of a house.
Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
Davidforthoffer Also, if you failed to notice the domicile in the video she walked up to it to take her photographs, and the fact the "state" official had to walk around the structure to "observe" the alleged violation which was NOT in PLAIN VIEW.
Davidforthoffer ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
Davidforthoffer You are incorrect yet again. You claim Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 gives the state the right to enter the land owners property. Sorry but state law will not supersede our constitutional rights.
I am glad you read ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
I am glad you read United States v. Dunn. Are you going to apply the four factors given there to this situation?
Or are you just going to say that earth-moving is obviously an intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life?
Davidforthoffer 1. ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
Davidforthoffer 1. It was in close proximity to the domicile. (land owners backyard) 2. Obviously you believe the land owners backyard does not entitle him to sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. Maybe you should read United States v. Van Dyke. 3. He posted no trespass signs, block drive way access with motor vehicle, and area was not in plain view.(view blocked by domicile) Lastly, there is no need to get rude, we are after all having an "intelligent" discussion.
I am sorry if you ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
I am sorry if you were offended.
In United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F.2d 992, the critical area was within "the exclusionary fence". THIS case had no such fence. "No Trespass" signs are irrelevant. They apply to both curtilage and open fields, and hence do not distinguish the two. The areas she entered were not separated from op
en field by a fence, nor were blocked from view, nor were used differently than nearby open fields. He flunks 3 of the 4 factors.
The fourth ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the ``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures....'' (5) As earlier noted, this protection extends to the area surrounding a residence that is known as curtilage. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in United States v. Dunn (3) Determining the boundaries of curtilage, however, is considerably more problematic than fixing the limits of a house.
While open fields ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a persons home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.
"No Trespassing" ... ( 1 week ago by 0Latitude)
"No Trespassing" sign and distance from nearest road creating an expectation of privacy. Thus entry onto the curtilage of owner's property without his consent violated his or her rights under the Fourth Amendment.
You didn't get a ... ( 1 week ago by DavidForthoffer)
You didn't get a response from me because all your new posts either had no now information or arguments, or were irrelevant.
Again: Curtilage issues can only be answered by considering Dunn's four factors as they relate to the intimacies of a domicile. The lack of a specific formula does NOT mean all areas somewhat near a home are protected by the Fourth Amendment. You need to apply the four factors, with reason.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code