Unlawful entry into dwelling

[Borzym60]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Can a city inspector illegally enter my home without consent and snoop around looking for work performed without a work permit?

 

[FlyingRon]

No, but he can legally enter the house without your consent and snoop around looking for work performed without a permit.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Can a city inspector illegally enter my home without consent and snoop around looking for work performed without a work permit?

Illegally? No. But, there are likely a number of circumstances under which such entry can be legal.

 

[Borzym60]

No, but he can legally enter the house without your consent and snoop around looking for work performed without a permit.

So this guy can go door to door and walk right into any house looking for work done by home owners? That is insane and seems to violate almost any privacy law protected under the 4th amendment.

A police officer needs a search warrant to search a home but a city inspector is exempt from any such warranted bases?

 

[CdwJava]

So this guy can go door to door and walk right into any house looking for work done by home owners? That is insane and seems to violate almost any privacy law protected under the 4th amendment.

HOW did he make entry? He can certainly go door to door and ask to come inside or demand to see permits for work. It's one thing if he pushes you out of the way and makes entry ... it's another if he asks to come inside and you let him.

 

[Borzym60]

HOW did he make entry? He can certainly go door to door and ask to come inside or demand to see permits for work. It's one thing if he pushes you out of the way and makes entry ... it's another if he asks to come inside and you let him.

Unlawful entry means he did so without any implied consent what so ever. No knock, no announcement of us present, just walked right in.

 

[CdwJava]

Unlawful entry means he did so without any implied consent what so ever. No knock, no announcement of us present, just walked right in.

So, you're saying he just walked up to the unlocked front door, turned the knob and walked in without talking to anyone? If so, and without a warrant or some sort of exigency, then you have a good chance of suppressing any evidence he discovered.

 

[Borzym60]

So, you're saying he just walked up to the unlocked front door, turned the knob and walked in without talking to anyone? If so, and without a warrant or some sort of exigency, then you have a good chance of suppressing any evidence he discovered.

Exactly what I was thinking. What is it, the exclusionary rule? A lawsuit will be the only means to achieving this objective, correct?

 

[quincy]

Exactly what I was thinking. What is it, the exclusionary rule? A lawsuit will be the only means to achieving this objective, correct?

When evidence has been obtained in violation of the search and seizure protections, the evidence cannot be used at trial. This is called the exclusionary rule.

However there is a "good faith exception" to this rule which allows for evidence discovered by officers acting in good faith and in reasonable, though mistaken, belief that they were authorized to take those actions to not be suppressed.

Is this city inspector some rogue public official who just wanders around neighborhoods walking into people's homes unannounced, or did the city inspector have good reason to enter your home? In other words, why do you think he entered your home?

 

[Borzym60]

When evidence has been obtained in violation of the search and seizure protections, the evidence cannot be used at trial. This is called the exclusionary rule.

However there is a "good faith exception" to this rule which allows for evidence discovered by officers acting in good faith and in reasonable, though mistaken, belief that they were authorized to take those actions to not be suppressed.

Is this city inspector some rogue public official who just wanders around neighborhoods walking into people's homes unannounced, or did the city inspector have good reason to enter your home? In other words, why do you think he entered your home?

He stopped because he saw work being performed by my contractor, which is permitted, along with other work the city already signed off on. The catch is, my contractor installed a patio door, and in the next county over ( city of milwaukee) a building permit does not need to be pulled, but in greenfield (where the house is) a permit must be pulled.

He saw the sliding glass door, and let him self into the house and then discovered a kitchen faucet I replaced (also needed a permit which I didnt know). So I think he entered my house because he saw work being performed. None the less, the guy had zero paper work with him so there was no indication if he had any idea whether or not there were any permits to begin with. There could have been permits, or could not have been, at the exact time, he would not have known the difference.

I want to work on some sort of conflict resolution with the city, and I think it is fully reasonable they should wave the fee for the kitchen sink permit and come inspect it. It is hard to believe without any reasonable doubt the city can prove that the faucet was installed by me unless they have photos of every kitchen faucet in the city of Greenfield.

Frankly, the fact you need to pay the city a $60 permit fee to install a faucet that cost less then that is entirely questionable in its own sense. Furthermore, the guy came out side yelling at me, and did not identify him self until I asked who he was. Then waved some silly plastic badge at my face. The guy was covered in tattoos, he is lucky I didn't invoke the castle doctrine.

 

[quincy]

He stopped because he saw work being performed by my contractor, which is permitted, along with other work the city already signed off on. The catch is, my contractor installed a patio door, and in the next county over ( city of milwaukee) a building permit does not need to be pulled, but in greenfield (where the house is) a permit must be pulled.

He saw the sliding glass door, and let him self into the house and then discovered a kitchen faucet I replaced (also needed a permit which I didnt know). So I think he entered my house because he saw work being performed. None the less, the guy had zero paper work with him so there was no indication if he had any idea whether or not there were any permits to begin with. There could have been permits, or could not have been, at the exact time, he would not have known the difference.

I want to work on some sort of conflict resolution with the city, and I think it is fully reasonable they should wave the fee for the kitchen sink permit and come inspect it. It is hard to believe without any reasonable doubt the city can prove that the faucet was installed by me unless they have photos of every kitchen faucet in the city of Greenfield.

Frankly, the fact you need to pay the city a $60 permit fee to install a faucet that cost less then that is entirely questionable in its own sense. Furthermore, the guy came out side yelling at me, and did not identify him self until I asked who he was. Then waved some silly plastic badge at my face. The guy was covered in tattoos, he is lucky I didn't invoke the castle doctrine.

In Greenfield are building permits supposed to be posted on the exterior of the house? Is this a new house that is still in the construction stage?

 

[Borzym60]

In Greenfield are building permits supposed to be posted on the exterior of the house? Is this a new house that is still in the construction stage?

The wording isnt clear or definitive. It says, permits must be posted, it does not say where. It also says, "INSPECTION REQUESTS SHOULD BE MADE 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE AND ARE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 10:00 A.M. AND 3:00 P.M."

No request was made.

This is not a new construction. It was a forclosed home we bought in July, with 3 different owners during the last 15 yrs with prior permits being issued as recent of 2010.

 

[CdwJava]

Exactly what I was thinking. What is it, the exclusionary rule? A lawsuit will be the only means to achieving this objective, correct?

Yes, the Exclusionary Rule prevents the state from introducing evidence that was seized illegally. If the matter goes to trial your attorney can make a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained unlawfully. A hearing will be held and the court will decide on admissibility. No lawsuit will be necessary for that.

From what I read here, the Inspector was passing by, saw work being done for which no permit could be provided and then he took action from there. At any time was he told to leave the property by you or your designated agent?

From the sound of it he observed construction or modification taking place. made a reasonable inquiry whether or not it was properly permitted, found out it was not, and then acted from there. Whether further inspection was warranted or not will depend on what he has to say and what argument your attorney might want to make.

However, can't you just work out a deal where you actually PULL the proper permits and get the inspection so the work is now legal and handled? or, are they trying to hit you with additional penalties?

 

[Zigner]

When you pulled the permit, you expressly gave permission for the inspector to come on to your property. From the building permit application (http://www.ci.greenfield.wi.us/vertical/sites/%7B3AC1C610-AAA9-4A5A-9791-57EBD1D696A9%7D/uploads/bldgpermit.pdf):

I expressly grant the building inspector, or the inspector’s authorized agent, permission to enter the premises for which this permit is sought at all reasonable hours and for any proper purpose to inspect the work which is being done.

 

[TigerD]

he is lucky I didn't invoke the castle doctrine.

I'm thinking that you are lucky you didn't attempt that.

DC