No Warrant Entry and Search

[MikeBjerum]

This is looking at something that is going on and thinking about how it could spread.

Yesterday, I was sitting in a truck stop trying to relax a little.  National Geographic Channel was on.  The show had something to do with animal abuse, animal control, saving animals, rescues, and daily issues.  They received a call about a man who had a lot of dog noise coming from his house.  They arrived at the home and demanded to be let in.  The man asked why, and they responded to a complaint and needing to check on the welfare of the animals (during all of this you could here dogs barking and yipping).  The man asked about their warrant as they demanded access.  The "officer" informed him that "We don't need a warrant to enter your home." 

I understand that there are certain times that a warrant is not needed due to the progress of a crime being witnessed by the officer, or suspicion of danger to a person.  However, a complaint about possible animal abuse or too many animals in a home???

What does this type of action by public officials mean to Free America?

As I typed this I recalled something I read a couple weeks  ago.  We tore down an old barn and needed to notify the assessor prior to December 31, 2016, so that it would be removed from our property taxes due in 2018.  In trying to find the exact person to contact I came across a file concerning property taxes and assessing.  According to our county's information, and it is cited from state information, I MUST give the assessor access to any and all buildings and areas of the property.

Let's say that law enforcement or some special interest governmental agency has a wild hair about me, but they don't think they can get a warrant.  Gee, Mike's property has not been assessed in three years.  They now have a government employee that can walk through every part of my place, and while they may not be able to dig through things, they are allowed to measure everything for square footage of rooms and building materials used.  Wonder what could go wrong with this type of "inspection."

[tombogan03884]

If I remember I'll ask my Dad about this when I talk to him Sunday.
He used to be an Animal Control officer.

[Rastus]

High Mr. or Miss or Mrs.  Assor, uh, assessor, please come in.  "Sorry about the hot peppers we're cooking burning your eyes.  What's that you say, you don't like who?  Why that's Jimi Hendrix on the stereo if that's what you are asking...All along the watchtower.....eh, what's that?  Careful where you step the dog shit somewhere here and see that empty aquarium...snake got out.  That may be why the dog shit...he got bit.  I can't hear you...careful don't touch the dog he'll bite you he's sick and hurtin'...go ahead on in...sorry the lights don't work...oh, yeah, that's the room where the dog shit.  Go ahead on in, it takes a couple of days to build up the venom again you should be OK.  Naw, I'm fine...you go right ahead I've got to go out here and work on my car."

[santahog]

I think it's a problem too. But I'm a cuck. What do I know...

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/trump-offers-to-destroy-texas-lawmaker-who-sought-ban-of-controversial-law-enforcement-practice/


Trump offers to ‘destroy’ Texas lawmaker who sought ban of controversial law enforcement practice
Tré Goins-Phillips Feb 7, 2017 5:35 pm
Trump offers to ‘destroy’ Texas lawmaker who sought ban of controversial law enforcement practice
Andrew Harrer, Pool/Getty Images
137


President Donald Trump, meeting with sheriffs from around the country Tuesday, offered to help “destroy” the career of one Texas lawmaker who sought to ban a controversial law enforcement practice.

During the meeting in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, Texas, mentioned a practice that allows law enforcement to seize the cash and property of those suspected of committing a crime prior to a guilty verdict — a controversial procedure known as asset forfeiture.

“On asset forfeiture, we’ve got a state senator in Texas that was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money,” Eavenson told the president, who interjected, “Can you believe that?”

“And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed,” the sheriff added.

Trump responded: “Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career.”

The back-and-forth, though awkward, earned laughter from those gathered around the conference table, though Trump did not seem to be joking. The Texas sheriff never gave the lawmaker’s name.

Asset forfeiture is a form of confiscation of assets by the state and typically applies to suspected terrorist activity, drug-related crimes and other criminal and civil offenses. In an op-ed for U.S. News, Kevin Glass, a conservative columnist and director of policy for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, took issue with the practice, saying it is not helpful in stopping or preventing crime, but actually negatively impacts those who often never go on to be charged.

    Asset forfeiture laws disproportionately affect vulnerable poor and minority populations. The kinds of crimes involved, and the lack of resources that victims of asset forfeiture typically have to fight them, are important here. In many cases of abuse, police are seizing things from people who merely wish to pursue their dreams.

Forbes contributor George Leef, a small-government advocate, wrote last month that there “certainly is something wrong” with asset forfeiture. He noted that law enforcement officers “should not be thinking about padding the department’s budget” with cash and properties as it seeks justice for potential criminals.

However, not everyone on the right is opposed to the practice. Republican Sen. Jeff Session of Alabama, Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, said in 2015 that he was “very unhappy” with criticism of the practice because, in his view, “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” Roll Call reported.

From Roll Call:

    [Sessions said] it would be “unthinkable that we would make it harder for the government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.” Thus, Sessions believes when government wants to take property allegedly involved in a crime, it “should not have a burden of proof higher than a normal civil case.”

As TheBlaze previously reported, Texas State Sen. Konni Burton, a Republican, is leading a legislative battle to prohibit law enforcement from taking an individual’s property without a criminal conviction.

Burton’s legislation would make it necessary for law enforcement officers to know beforehand that the possessors of the seized cash or property are, in fact, actually criminals and the property is in some way linked to an actual crime.

“If Texas is like a lot of other places, you’re going to get heavy public support for measures like these, with the law enforcement lobby being the main voice against reform,” Mike Maharrey, national communications director for the 10th Amendment Center, a think tank that advocates shrinking government power, told the Dallas Observer of Burton’s proposal.

“They’ll cry about blood running in the streets and an inability to fund their operations without it,” he continued. “Civil forfeiture is definitely a well-defended piece of turf that law enforcement holds where it’s able to.”

While the law enforcement community largely backs asset forfeiture, claiming it helps them to effectively combat terrorism and the drug trade, giving police the edge in discovering criminalizing information, politicians on both sides of the aisle have voiced opposition to the practice.

Former President Barack Obama has a mixed record on asset forfeiture. In 2015, the Department of Justice announced it would do away with the Equitable Sharing Program, a system where the federal government grants state and local law enforcement agencies the assets they’ve seized, the Daily Caller reported.

According to the Washington Post, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to make the case as to why they should get their property back from law enforcement officials. “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” an Albuquerque DEA official told the Albuquerque Journal.

However, less than one year later, Obama’s Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, reinstated the program. The initiative, according to some, presents a major conflict of interest because it increases local law enforcement groups’ incentive to seize property, knowing it will likely be granted to them by the federal government.

Law enforcement officials practice asset forfeiture by “removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society,” according to the Justice Department.

“Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals,” the DOJ’s explainer added.

[crusader rabbit]

Legal basis for entry (at least in Florida) requires that the responding officer has a legitimate reason to suspect that: a crime is being committed; a life is in danger (used to be a human life, but the tree huggers have expanded that to include animal life); or a victim (person in distress) can be seen through a window or door and undue delay might result in death or injury; or certain smells (i.e. strong smell of marijuana or meth production--it smells like extremely strong cat urine--where delay could result in the destruction of evidence.  There may currently be some additional officer observations that I am not aware of that would allow an LEO to make entry.

I think demanding entry due to a barking dog would be a real stretch and might result in a civil action against the LEO involved.  If the dog was yelping in pain, it's possible a case could be made.  And if the LEO observed abuse, that's a crime and he could make immediate entry into the structure to make an arrest.

On the other hand, the dog owner in question might be one of those Adam Henry types that engages in the so-called sport of dog fighting.  If that happened to be the case, it's also possible that he is prohibited from owning any dogs.  The officer involved would not need a warrant to gain access in that event. 

As to the question of asset forfeiture before adjudication, that is simply a way for PDs to improve their budgets.  It is easily subject to abuse.  For example, more than $10,000 in cash in your briefcase or pocket is sufficient to generate suspicion of a narcotics crime and the money is subject to forfeiture--even if you are stopped for an illegal lane change.  Wouldn't matter what the money was really for or how you happened to get it.  Of course, it is possible to pursue redress through the courts, but the expense is great and good results are not guaranteed, so the forfeited money usually stays in cop coffers

I have no issue with asset forfeiture AFTER a perp has been found guilty of a narcotics crime (though I don't personally believe the government should have any say in what someone may choose to put into their body).  Somebody smuggling significant quantities of cocaine or meth or crack should forfeit his Mercedes, bank account and go-fast boat.  Dude on the street with a few ounces of grass in a baggy should not lose anything but often will.

FWIW,

Crusader Rabbit

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

The blaze is shit I don't believe a thing they print. Beck is a Trump hater and pushes fake news.