What would you have done ?

[Sage of Seattle]

From what I understand, the woman (inspector) dealt with him the previous day. Why did she not go to her Gov't Bible and photocopy all the holy words that are writ upon it (the regulations that give her the authority) and show it to the homeowner after she'd arrived with the sheriff's deputy? It would have taken less than five minutes, and would have covered any legal question. I thought I heard the deputy say that he didn't know if she had the legal authorization, but he just went along with it on her say-so. I could be mistaken on that however. Personally, if I were the copper, I would have done the same thing -- just behaved differently.

And the "if you've got nothing to hide" bullspit really grates my walnuts. I almost couldn't believe that the copper said that.

 

[Jeff White]

Derby FALs asked:

Have you ever repaired or built a septic system?

Yes I have. In fact I'm getting ready to replace the one I have now. I've seen plenty of old septic systems around here that were nothing more then perforated pipe to leach everything into the soil, not even using a tank of any type to collect and compost solids. Get enough homes close enough together with systems like that and you will contaminate the ground water. That can be pretty critical if your drinking water comes from shallow wells.

I'm sorry, but I'm standing by my statement that regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary when you get people living in close proximity. I can't help but get the impression that many of you would prefer to live in third world conditions. Personally, I've seen a bit of the third world and prefer things here.....

Jeff

 

[Derby FALs]

Sounds like you know your ****.

 

[DRZinn]

The guy was a bit unhinged, but he was absolutely right.

The health inspector has been steeped in the toxic brew that is government service, until she thinks that what she can do in government service has no limits.

The deputy is either stupid, scared, or a classic jack-booted thug. Common sense tells him that if a police officer cannot enter without a warrant or probable cause, surely that would apply to a health inspector as well. Either he doesn't get it, and thinks the inspector is correct, or he's afraid to do anything against another agent of the state, or he understands perfectly well what is going on and doesn't give a damn.

I lean toward cowardice, but his "If you don't have anything to hide" line smells a lot like JBT.

And if Jeff White is correct, and the state has illegitimately granted her the power to enter without a warrant, then travesty is the strongest word I can think of, and it's not nearly enough.

 

[Wastemore]

Jeff,

as far as I could tell, there were no houses in close proximity. They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well.

I don't think folks welcome third world conditions at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it's about being presumed a liar, he told her what he was doing- I thought he made himself pretty clear.
It's about a government official who decided that the flexing of muscle/show of authority is more important than a homeowners right to privacy. He challenged her authority and that was more important than the task at hand. She was not going to let any homeowner tell her that she had no power over him.

He crumpled her tin badge and she was insulted.
It's a matter of principle and wills, it really has nothing to do with his yard or the dirt he was moving.

I can't help but get the impression that many of you welcome the nanny state- a place where we're all liars and only government officials know the truth and the truth is whatever they say it is.

 

[Wastemore]

At the very least she could have told him what she was looking for-
"I just want to look around" would not please me either. While I have nothing to hide, I don't much care to have anyone, especially a government official, snooping through my yard. The fact that she was vague simply shows that her attitude is one of " I don't have to tell you anything- and, I'm still going to look around."

 

[Mark Whiteman]

Wastemore said: "...They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well."

Not entirely true. It depends on the soil, subsoil, and the grade. My inlaws' well was contaminated by a wannabe hog farmer 100yds and two junior-acre lots away. He'd decided it was fiscally sound to spread raw hogpen runoff on some bare ground around his place. The health dept. wasn't much help until Mom suggested aloud maybe the media would be able to help if she gave them a copy of her video showing the neighbor spraying raw hog hooey around to show their viewers. The guy was out of business in 30 days.

There are definitely different factors in play here.

 

[Art Eatman]

For those who think there should not be a lot of authority for those involved with health issues, do a bit of research about what happened to groundwater around the Hanford nuclear reactor near Hanford, Washington.

It''s been twenty years or more since I checked, but the last thing I read was that adioactive materials had been found in groundwater as far as forty miles from the site.

The deal was thusly: "These storage containers wont' leak." Oops. "Well, these leaking containers are on an impervious rock stratum, which won't leak into the acquifer." Oops. "Well, the material won't travel far." Oops.

For lousy septic systems, it's not just the E. Coli; nitrates can also be a problem. Nitrates in groundwater can cause subtle debilitation of those drinking the water.

For all that E. Coli won't survive in sandy soil for more than one hundred feet from a primitive outhouse, if the substrate is an impervious rock layer or is fractured limestone, the distance can be much greater. Just because the movement is slow doesn't mean that Bad Stuff won't eventualloy contaminate the neighbors' properties.

Art

 

[Atticus]

What would I do? Since your asking - I would have let her do her job and be done with it. I just don't have the time to waste on stupid crap. The guy was probably within his rights, but IMHO he's just another pseudo nut job looking for a battle. A reasonable person would expect some type of zoning or health inspector to show up if he's doing major construction, or earth moving with a bulldozer.

 

[Zundfolge]

I'm sorry, but I'm standing by my statement that regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary when you get people living in close proximity.

I'm not suggesting we do away with regulations on what goes back into ground water, I'm just suggesting that 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. This should be the same for everyone regardless of the crime alleged.

Catching murderers is important.
Catching child molesters is important.
Catching thieves is important.
Stopping polluters is important.

But none of it is so important that we should abandon our constitutional rights for it.

Hell, some believe that thousands of children are murdered every year by guns, so lets toss the Second Amendment and just ban the darn things ... lets toss the 4th amendment and just send the police out kicking down doors to get to those guns.


Once you abandon the basic rights we enjoy under the constitution for a "good reason", someone else will come along with another "good reason" to enslave us even more.

 

[Jeff White]

Zundfolge said;

I'm not suggesting we do away with regulations on what goes back into ground water, I'm just suggesting that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

Last time I checked a yard was not a person, house, paper or effects. It's a yard. I doubt you'd get any court to rule that the man had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his yard unless he erected some type of privacy fence that didn't allow someone to observe what was happening in the yard. Are you contending that the health inspector should take written statements from the neighbors that said the man was putting in a new septic system, then go down to the courthouse and swear a complaint before a judge to get a warrant allowing her to do her job? Remember now, everything is visible from the street. There is no fourth amendment issue. None. Your real property is not your residence.

I already posted two examples where the law gives the people investigating certain things access to real property. I suggest you look up the trespass statute in your state. It probably reads something like this one from Illinois:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=49500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑263)
Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
(a) Whoever:
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building; or
(2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
(3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
(3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land; or
(4) enters upon one of the following areas in or on a motor vehicle (including an off‑road vehicle, motorcycle, moped, or any other powered two‑wheel vehicle), after receiving prior to that entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry is forbidden or remains upon or in the area after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart:
(A) any field that is used for growing crops or which is capable of being used for growing crops; or
(B) an enclosed area containing livestock; or
(C) or an orchard; or
(D) a barn or other agricultural building containing livestock;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.
For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation; nor shall this Section apply to a person who enters a public building under the reasonable belief that the building is still open to the public.
(b) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of Subsection (a) if he has been notified personally, either orally or in writing including a valid court order as defined by subsection (7) of Section 112A‑3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 granting remedy (2) of subsection (b) of Section 112A‑14 of that Code, or if a printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to such land or the forbidden part thereof.
(c) This Section does not apply to any person, whether a migrant worker or otherwise, living on the land with permission of the owner or of his agent having apparent authority to hire workers on such land and assign them living quarters or a place of accommodations for living thereon, nor to anyone living on such land at the request of, or by occupancy, leasing or other agreement or arrangement with the owner or his agent, nor to anyone invited by such migrant worker or other person so living on such land to visit him at the place he is so living upon the land.
(d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under this Section if he beautifies unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial properties located within any municipality. For the purpose of this subsection, "unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property" means any real estate (1) in which the taxes have not been paid for a period of at least 2 years; and (2) which has been left unoccupied and abandoned for a period of at least one year; and "beautifies" means to landscape, clean up litter, or to repair dilapidated conditions on or to board up windows and doors.
(e) No person shall be liable in any civil action for money damages to the owner of unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property which that person beautifies pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section.
(f) This Section does not prohibit a person from entering a building or upon the land of another for emergency purposes. For purposes of this subsection (f), "emergency" means a condition or circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by the person to be in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or in which property is or is reasonably believed to be in imminent danger of damage or destruction.
(g) Paragraph (3.5) of subsection (a) does not apply to a peace officer or other official of a unit of government who enters a building or land in the performance of his or her official duties.
(Source: P.A. 94‑263, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

If you want to change the law, why don't you keep the building inspectors or whoever out the next time you make some improvements to your property? They will most likely access your property anyway under the authority they were given when the law was passed. Now you will have standing to sue to have the portion of the law that gives them the right to enter your property to inspect your work on fourth amendment grounds. Let us know how that works out for you.....I don't think you'll prevail but you never know.

I don't doubt for minute that the deputy was unsure of the law. It's not the kind of thing most police officers regularly deal with. When I went with the ACO on that animal neglect case, I was going to stop him from entering the shed where the puppies were kept. Then he showed me the law that I posted earlier.

I'll never figure out the members who regularly post in Legal and Political. In this thread, the private property owners rights are paramount and trump any interest the state (which in reality is everyone else) has in making sure he doesn't contaminate the ground water and create unhealthy conditions for everyone; and in the Employee vs. Employer thread, private property rights mean absolutely nothing if your employer doesn't want to let you have firearms on his property. Can't have it both ways.

Jeff

 

[cyanide]

What would I do? Since your asking - I would have let her do her job and be done with it. I just don't have the time to waste on stupid crap. The guy was probably within his rights, but IMHO he's just another pseudo nut job looking for a battle. A reasonable person would expect some type of zoning or health inspector to show up if he's doing major construction, or earth moving with a bulldozer.

Her job is to serve the public

they forget that a lot now a days.

 

[Kentak]

This thread would be a lot more interesting and useful if there was some information about any follow up action that occurred

K

 

[cyanide]

Wastemore said: "...They would have to be track-homes to run the risk of contamination of even a shallow well."

Not entirely true. It depends on the soil, subsoil, and the grade. My inlaws' well was contaminated by a wannabe hog farmer 100yds and two junior-acre lots away. He'd decided it was fiscally sound to spread raw hogpen runoff on some bare ground around his place. The health dept. wasn't much help until Mom suggested aloud maybe the media would be able to help if she gave them a copy of her video showing the neighbor spraying raw hog hooey around to show their viewers. The guy was out of business in 30 days.

There are definitely different factors in play here.
__________________

This post was not made to show how to make a septic

it was posted to show the lack of rights a property owner has in this country.

Geeez, get a clue ?

 

[gak]

Is the only way to combat this a fence ? I agree he would've been arrested the second he touched her to make a citizen's arrest. Maybe now I understand why people put up 10 foot high fences and locked driveway gates as the only entrance. No key, no permission, no entry.

Of course when the neighbours lie and say you're a drug-dealer or a health violation, or the cops just lie and say someone tipped them, everyone will see you on Dallas S.W.A.T when they rip off your fences/windows/front door and pile concussion grenades/CS gas on you.

But like the S.W.A.T guy says after they cause $300,000 in damage and find no drugs: "It was a good raid."

 

[Jeff White]

cyanide said;

This post was not made to show how to make a septic

it was posted to show the lack of rights a property owner has in this country.

Geeez, get a clue ?

There's something I don't think that you understand. Your rights to do whatever you wish on your property cannot violate my right to drink potable water from my well.

That's why we have a system of permits and inspections for things like septic systems. The idea that the health department should secure a warrant to inspect a septic system is one of the most asinine thoughts I've ever seen posted here. A badly designed and constructed septic system could contaminate a water supply and make people sick maybe even sick enough that an elderly person or an infant could die before they ever traced the source of the illness to the water. That's why these things are inspected and approved before they are used.

What recourse would you give the family who's infant you killed by contaminating their drinking water?

There have to be some rules in order for people to be able to live in proximity of each other. I doubt if any of the founding fathers would have started a revolution over your right to poison your neighbors drinking water by building an inadequate septic system.

You picked the wrong example to use to make your statement. You'd get all kinds of support if you had posted an example of fish and wildlife agents depriving a farmer of his fields because it was discovered a rare mouse nested there or a man who couldn't sell and subdivide his land because after a 3 inch rain water stood on part of it.

But a nutcase trying to keep his septic system from being inspected is just going to make your cause look as out of the mainstream as he is.

Jeff

 

[hammer4nc]

But a nutcase trying to keep his septic system from being inspected is just going to make your cause look as out of the mainstream as he is.

From the video, he stated he would allow access to the property if a warrant was produced. A fact you conveniently ignore?

So, the issue boils down to "exigent circumstances."

In this thread, examples of cholera epidemics, third world references, and hog feedlots were used to justify warrantless access by the health inspector. Clearly, these circumstances are vastly different from a single-wide trailer on 2.2 acres, where a septic system is being repaired. Heck, if groundwater contamination is such a perilous issue as presented, maybe all large pets should be required to wear diapers, so that their fecal matter is properly disposed of? That is what I meant by absurdity. A little common sense goes a long way.

But the arguments do show how far the proponents of government intrusion will go to promote their activities. Repeatedly, it is falsely presented as an all-or nothing choice, which is tranparently disingenuous.

Someone brought up the example of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland WA. Thank you. Was this environmental catastrophe created by the government, or the private sector? How many government officials have been prosecuted or punished for their actions there? For every citizen that is victimized by ovezealous government enforcers in minor cases like this, I can cite an example of criminal government negligence that goes unpunished, and all the armies of code enforcers stand around with their thumbs up their butts. Why?

As we say wrt gun control laws, it isn't about the gun, its about control. Likewise regarding environmental control regulations, it isn't about the environment, its about control.

 

[Byron Quick]

What recourse would you give the family who's infant you killed by contaminating their drinking water?

If I were running things, the person responsible for contaminating the drinking water which killed the infant, would be executed after being found guilty of premeditated murder. That, of course, would be cold comfort to the family of the infant, but might just give the next person who wished to cut corners on pollution control-pause.

Jeff, the problem I have with this entire business is when governments try to cut corners themselves with the way it does business. It looks like obtaining warrants in this situation might be necessary. It looks like that would be a hassle. Lets find a way to do away with the warrant requirement. I think that mindset is very dangerous over time.

I think a better way needs to be found. A way which protects the public from dangers such as defective septic systems but at the same time does so in such a way as to maintain the hard won limitations on government power.

We've already experienced such problems in many cities. Some citizen gets crosswise with city hall and the city doesn't send the cops after them. They send the inspectors in.

 

[Kentak]

The right to do whatever you want with or on your property is not unlimited, and rightly so. For example, change the grade of your lot such that the runoff water floods and undermines the foundation of my house and watch how fast you'll be paying a court-ordered remedy. Hopefully with punitive damages.

K

 

[DRZinn]

I see your point and agree, Kentak, but allow me a touch of pedantry: In the case you mentioned, it's not what I did to my property, but what I did to yours. I make this point only because one of our (quickly being forgotten) principles is that an action is criminal only if it causes harm to another individual.

 

[Kentak]

Doc--

Your quite right, and I didn't mean to imply it was the alteration to one's own property that was wrong in and of itself. It is the negative effect on someone else's property that was the infringement.

Here's a hypothetical. What do you all think about this? Suppose you live in a nice, attractive neighborhood with conservatively styled, tidy homes and yards. Would a homeowner have the right to paint his house bright green with pink polka dots? Obviously, such a thing would adversely affect the market value of all other homes in the immediate vicinity.

K

 

[grislyatoms]

I don't understand. Why are folks here calling him a "nut case"?

Seems to me he was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. He sounded upset on the video, but I would be pretty upset too if they did that to me.

Did I miss something?

 

[DRZinn]

I didn't mean to imply it was the alteration to one's own property that was wrong in and of itself.

I was pretty sure you didn't, but I think it's a very important distinction to make.

Suppose you live in a nice, attractive neighborhood with conservatively styled, tidy homes and yards. Would a homeowner have the right to paint his house bright green with pink polka dots? Obviously, such a thing would adversely affect the market value of all other homes in the immediate vicinity.

Short of painting hardcore porn on the house, I'd say it's noone's business. Of course, if there's a homeowner's association, compliance with the bylaws of which was a requirement for buying the home, then that's a different story entirely.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The idea that the health department should secure a warrant to inspect a septic system is one of the most asinine thoughts I've ever seen posted here.

Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom and tyranny.

 

[Cosmoline]

cop was negligent in his duties allowing her to do what she did.

More than that. If the cop assisted with an illegal search, the cop may be individually liable under 1983. But it sounds like the whole matter be be over and done with now. As a general matter, the videotape was a good idea, as was refusing to permit a search. But his next step after they ignored him should have been to CALL HIS LAWYER rather than continue to rant. Nobody pays attention to a ranter, but as soon as you have a lawyer driving out there the cop will get nervous and call his people, who will likely tell him he needs a warrant.

regulations on what goes back into the ground water are necessary

Sure. But whether she's snooping around for a body or an illegal UST she needs to do it legally. She may have been able to see enough from the road to get a warrant, but she still needs to get the warrant. Maybe she had one, or a court order, but if not that appears to have been a very illegal search. She wasn't going on to grab a rabid dog or check a meter. She was quite clearly going on to confirm evidence in connection with a potential court case or administrative action. That requires a warrant or court order of some type. As a lawyer I'd love to be able to enter a plaintiff's home to check things out when my clients get sued. But I'm not allowed to do that on my own authority, or even with a cop backing me up.