U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment is Dead in America
May 26, 2010 | 
Author 
“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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
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 supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific Information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government, but the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope. Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example “where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”
Duration : 0:9:0
[youtube bB_jp3Sm1BY]
Posted in Information Search | 
Tags: 4th, amendment, America, constitution, Dead, Gerbil, GerbilHumper, Humper, In, is, U.S.
The man video …
The man video taping this is right but he sounds like a straight up homer.
@BaradaNels “THE …
@BaradaNels “THE ONLY CONFIRMED IN THIS CASE! IS THE COP AND LADY ARE NO LONGER EMPLOYED AT THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYERS! CALL THE NUMBERS AND CONFIRM FOR YOURSELVES!”
then someone should tell the LaPorte county health dept to remove Julie Wolfe’s name from their website. she is currently listed as an “environmental health specialist.” and there is a deputy Cade Cooper with the lake patrol listed on the Laporte county sheriff’s office website.
How did this turn …
How did this turn out?
i usually side with …
i usually side with law enforcement but this is ridiculous. they have no right to disturb your property without going through the proper procedures that is a load of horse shit
Per the Open Fields …
Per the Open Fields doctrine a warrant is not necessary. She never searched anything. The 4th Amendment does not apply to the Open Fields. I think some of you need to reread the Amendment and tell me exactly which “person, house, papers, and effects” were searched or seized.
If your rights …
If your rights impose the rights of the populist. Thus Your home is a Hazard or easier said, If you have no respect for yourself, or the people around you. You have no rights.
Unbelievable!!! …
Unbelievable!!! The idiot cop even said “if you have nothing to hide, why don’t you let her in” assisting the in this charade.
@mothmen: Probable …
@mothmen: Probable cause is what is needed to be brought before a judge to issue a warrant, not what is needed to search without a warrant. You are probably mistaking probable cause for an exigent circumstance.
Look up the meaning of _Affirmation in law_ to understand why you are mistaken in your opinion of it’s usage. Affirmation is used when the person objects to the use of God in an oath.
@DavidForthoffer I …
@DavidForthoffer I escorted many such ‘governmental employees’ for the health department, social services, child support enforcement, zone, code and animal; It became an issue on a health inspector, when I refused to cross the line, and kept him from doing it.
@mothmen
as long …
@mothmen
as long as the police officer and other government official have justifiable probable cause, they are allowed to search in the manner they did. however, this video does not diverge any detail on that matter.
without knowing the pretense, it’s impossible to argue the legality of what occured. the information on what happened provided by the video is too narrow, that’s all.
“The right of the …
“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.”
the key word is “OR”.
By law she has to …
By law she has to identify herself and her reason. Please let us know how this turned out. Next time stand in front of her so she has to make contact with you (assault) and misuse of police powers is a matter for the F.B.I., and the county doesn’t like to argue with the fed. Can I enter your property and search at will, what are you hiding mister cop.
This man lost his …
This man lost his land, he lost in court. However she cannot act on a anonymous tp. He has told her she is not allowed on the property, no trespassing signs were posted. I looked up the law and if a health inspector is not allowed onto a property they have to get a judge to sign a warrant so she can come on the property. She already trespassed and was told not to come back.
@sandra44035: The …
@sandra44035: The problem with a private citizen physically removing someone you believe is committing a crime is that if you are mistaken, you would not enjoy the qualified immunity that a State Constable enjoys. So if it turns out that she was neither violating his 4th Amendment rights nor trespassing, then you could be subject to criminal charges yourself, such as battery.
She has the legal …
She has the legal authority to question what she sees from the public, and no further. With out a warrant, as a former State Constable, I would have physically removed her.
@DavidForthoffer
…
@DavidForthoffer
Your ego will not let you accept that IC 16-20-1-23 is not yours alone to interpret. Youre a sore loser.
@DavidForthoffer
…
@DavidForthoffer
Don’t try and change the subject.
Davidforthoffer is NOT the sole interpreter of IC16-20-1-23. Deal with it!!!
Stop asking people why they believe the lady was trespassing.
You are not willing to accept that YOUR interpretation of IC16-20-1-23 is NOT final.
All I had to do is prove that others hold a different interpretation. And I have done that.
@cris750
If a U.S. …
@cris750
If a U.S. citizen is detained in Arizona for the sole reason that he refused to produce ID, he could sue the police officers and police department that detained him under 42 USC 1983. It would be particularly clear his rights were violated if the police held him longer than 48 hours. But that is a lot of hassle to go through. But a class action or RICO lawsuit might bring huge penalties.
@MrNoahdog
You …
@MrNoahdog
You misquote what I say, then attack that misquotation.
What I said is absolutely true and relevant. You have not disproved what I said.
You obviously know that, since you have switched to attacking me, rather than discussing the issues.
The cop wants the …
The cop wants the property owner to try and stop the so they can lie and say they were assualted. Private property should be private.
The cop wants the …
The cop wants the property owner to try and stop the so they can lie and say they were assualted. Private property should be private.
So, could legal …
So, could legal citizens sue the state of Arizona for violating their 4th Amendment right?? Search and seizure just because they are non-white ??? ofcourse, there are illegals but there are LEGAL and even US citizens who look like “mexicans”. Yes, everyone is losing their rights including WHITE citizens.
So what was the …
So what was the outcome? Did you sue? Did you lose? Did you do nothing?
@DavidForthoffer …
@DavidForthoffer Are you a complete moron or just a pathetically sore loser. This is youtube not a courtroom, and I can use whatever court case I want to prove my point. (legally)
It is a fact that other people have interpreted IC 16-20-1-23 to require a warrant. You can’t change that. (I have proven it)
Does it hurt your ego so much to realize that you are not the only one allowed to make an interpretation.
@MrNoahdog
FACT: …
@MrNoahdog
FACT: It is ILLEGAL for any court to regard that as precedent in any other court case.
FACT: That statement has no legal bearing on this video.
You can hate it or disagree with it, but you can’t change that ruling.