Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
|
|
Health Inspector Posted by: texteditor
Video duration: 539 seconds Incident in Indiana where a health inspector trespasses on private property while law enforcement looks on. Related: freedom, health, indiana, inspector, law, liberty, martial, property, rights, sheriff, tyranny Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest comments made on this video:
By: DavidForthoffer. on 22 Nov 08, 15:45:41
She does not need probable cause to enter his property. "Probable cause" is related to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protected persons, houses, papers, and effects, but not open fields as here. So the only issue left is whether she is trespassing. Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows her to enter private property to investigate disease after due notice, which she obviously may have given.
By: AD074091. on 22 Nov 08, 09:17:47
I think what people are missing is that the health inspector is acting in capacity of Gov't and not that as an individual. She needs probable cause before she can enter, then needs to obtain legal authority. Moving dirt is not probable cause. She is taking picture to obtain probable cause.
By: jase7725. on 20 Nov 08, 06:48:58
What a dumb redneck.
By: Alialama1. on 18 Nov 08, 21:03:48
i would go around collecting dog and cat shit. i would make a cat and dog shit fortress!! ...that i'll teach em.haha! picture that biiiiitch!
By: DavidForthoffer. on 08 Nov 08, 17:05:12
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.
By: darinmad. on 08 Nov 08, 11:18:53
THIS IS WHAT FASCISM LOOKS LIKE
By: 0Latitude. on 06 Nov 08, 02:43:50
"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.
By: 0Latitude. on 06 Nov 08, 01:16:42
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.
By: 0Latitude. on 06 Nov 08, 01:12:24
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.
By: DavidForthoffer. on 06 Nov 08, 00:21:03
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 open field by a fence, nor were blocked from view, nor were used differently than nearby open fields. He flunks 3 of the 4 factors.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 23:41:55
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.
By: DavidForthoffer. on 05 Nov 08, 23:10:32
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?
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 22:30:36
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.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 22:21:11
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.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 21:59:55
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.
By: DavidForthoffer. on 05 Nov 08, 20:29:11
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.
By: DavidForthoffer. on 05 Nov 08, 20:24:56
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.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 18:54:50
@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.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 18:49:21
@Davidforthoffer You are incorrect. "open fields" doctrine has been expanded to include ALMOST any open space OTHER than the land immediately surrounding a domicile.
By: DavidForthoffer. on 05 Nov 08, 18:28:53
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.
By: 0Latitude. on 05 Nov 08, 18:22:01
@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.
By: chromedreamz. on 28 Oct 08, 15:03:32
she should be sodimized publically. where's that Horn guy in Texas when you need him btw, what happened in the end?
By: DavidForthoffer. on 26 Oct 08, 05:45:15
The lady and the sheriff did not break any laws. The videographer was evicted for health code violations.
By: SilverNova13. on 26 Oct 08, 05:23:28
Wow this is awful! I would've cuffed the lady. I hope you were able to sue her for all she was worth!
By: MinkMink999. on 18 Oct 08, 13:42:06
911missingLinks. com Is this related to whats happeneing in this video?