Illegal privacy invasion by county employee

[AdvantaLTD]

I live in Camarillo, CA (Ventura County)

Recently I had a county animal control vehicle pull up in front of my house which is is a residential tract neighborhood within city limits. The officer knocked on my door, identified himself and asked whether or not my dog was licensed. I replied, what would lead you to believe that I have an animal that needs licensing. He indicated that he was doing routine policing of the neighborhood and heard my dog in my back yard. Upon further questioning of him, he revealed that in his afternoons, rather than sit around and wait for a wild animal call, his superiors tell him to pick a street and knock on all the doors. He confirmed that this was a totally random call by showing hsi sheets of paper with all the houses that he had visited that day.

Obviously he is looking for revenue for the county in the form of a dog license fee. I have absolutely no problem with rabies shots, vaccines, etc. and my dog is fully up to date on all his vaccines. I do however have an objection to paying an annual fee to the county for the privilege of feeding a dog who incidentally does not leave my property ever. I blew my top and drove him off the property and pointed to my truck in the driveway and instructed him not to return to my house when that truck was in the driveway. So he came back the next day and took $50.00 off my wife.

I guess my question is isn't there something wrong with a county officer knocking on my door with no report or good reason and asking if I have an animal when there is no evidence of such to the casual observer. These types of procedures seem to be very common in this city. There is simply too much money here and most people must not be working for a living.

Thank you

 

[CdwJava]

A government employee has just as much right to ask you annoying questions as the salesman who walks to your door. Additionally, the law says that your animal must be licensed and registered. If you do not agree with that law, then you can seek to alter it or remove it.

Additionally, simply by hearing the dog in the backyard, he had good cause to inquire further. Just how far he could push the issue is the big question.

I know that here, if you told the animal control officer you did - or did not - have a license, they can verify that at their office. If you didn't, they would seek voluntary compliance. Lacking that, you would start receiving citations until such time as the animal WAS licensed.

- Carl

 

[AdvantaLTD]

Well put.

Thank you for your reply.

I'd like to present an analogy to you since it appears you may be a police officer.

Does a police officer have a right to knock on my door without cause and ask me if I am a crack head or if I have crack cocaine in my home, and then proceed to arrest me for such possession?

 

[CdwJava]

I'd like to present an analogy to you since it appears you may be a police officer.

I am ... a sergeant, to be precise (not that it makes a whole LOT of difference ... just that I supervise a lot of other cops).

Does a police officer have a right to knock on my door without cause and ask me if I am a crack head or if I have crack cocaine in my home, and then proceed to arrest me for such possession?

The police have a 'right' to ASK anything. An arrest requires probable cause. And in CA, your admission - by itself - is not sufficient for an arrest. However, if you admit to the possession and let the officer in to see it, then your going to jail.

However, if I saw a meth lab in your yard, or smelled it, I would have sufficient cause to seize the residence and obtain a warrant ... and likely arrest you as well.

- Carl

 

[okamsrazor]

It is true the officer may ASK anything they like, but also the owner can simply tell the officer not to bother him unless he/she has a legitimate reason to be there and shut the door. Simply "hearing" the dog in the back yard is not probable cause to believe the animal is not licensed, it is simply cause to believe a dog is back there. While the officer can ask if the dog is licensed, there is no reason for the owner to answer unless the officer is there on more then a random check. I would also be sure to complain LOUDLY about the harrasment taking place to the animal control police chief and anyone who would listen. While it may do any good as far as changing the annoying practice, animal control would be a little more leary of simply knocking on your door randomly knowing you are a "squeaky wheel".

 

[CdwJava]

However, the Animal Control officer can check their agency's records to see whether there is any record of a registered animal there. When/if they find that there is NO record of a licensed animal, that WILL give them cause to investigate further. What can be done after that really depends on agency policy.

At least around here, they would then either obtain a court order to inspect the animal or would cite the owner for an unlicensed animal. It's really not all that tough.

And doing a 'knock-and-talk' is something that has been done by various agencies for all sorts of things for years.

Also, there is no crime for animal control or any other agency to be doing their duty. The police chief wouldn't care ... and I doubt a judge would consider an order telling the animal control agency to back off - especially if the dog is unlicensed!

- Carl

 

[okamsrazor]

I agree. However, the police do not have the power to simply knock on a citizens doors and ask "hey I hear you have a crack habit, have any crack in the house?" as that is considered harrasment. If the officer checked all registered addresses of licensed dog owners in the area and that address did not check out then approaching the residents is understandable. To simply knock on doors asking for proof of papers is a little socialist and not something a judge would likely tolerate as a standard police practice if it was seriously challenged.

 

[CdwJava]

I agree. However, the police do not have the power to simply knock on a citizens doors and ask "hey I hear you have a crack habit, have any crack in the house?" as that is considered harrasment.

Who told you that? I don't know of ANY state where that would be a violation of any law. To do it every day ... or to single out only the one house for frequent inquiry MIGHT be considered harassment, and COULD (slim, but possible) result in a civil "cease and desist" order.

If the officer checked all registered addresses of licensed dog owners in the area and that address did not check out then approaching the residents is understandable. To simply knock on doors asking for proof of papers is a little socialist and not something a judge would likely tolerate as a standard police practice if it was seriously challenged.

Everywhere I know of this is perfectly lawful and acceptable practice.

Like I said, every day is a different matter. A once in a while, or even one time only deal is certainly lawful.

EDIT: However, it is not COMMON practice in police agencies. Unless we are responding to some kind of anonymous complaint, or have a tip we cannot otherwise work, we generally do not do "knock and talks". However, other agencies - such as animal control and even code compliance - may find this a useful practice on a regular basis.

- Carl

 

[AdvantaLTD]

Thank you for your responses, although I am still very confused. As an update I should add the officer did indeed possess a list of licensed households for my street and other adjoining streets. I made a particular point of the fact that more households than not have animals and his lists reflected only a handful of licensed animals, resulting in a bonanza of "positive" results in his quest. I still believe that my admission of ownership of an animal is required prior to his processing of license request, etc. In my particular case, it is a moot point as my wife gladly gave up my hard earned money at his request the following day. I started this thread more as a discovery to my own belief that if someone had the time and energy to challenge it, would it stand?

It does seem a bit of an invasion to me albeit minor.

Thanks

 

[CdwJava]

It depends on what you were challenging and on what grounds.

Do people (even government employees) have a right to go door to door and ask even incriminating questions? Sure they do.

Does Animal Control have a right to investigate if they hear a dog barking and have no record of any dog licenses being issued to the residence? Sure they do.

The question would be in what manner can they conduct the investigation. And this is limited by the law and by policy.

In my experience, if animal Control wants to find out this information, they will. Generally, however, they do not go too far out of their way to force issues of licensing ... but, that may not be true everywhere.

However, like anything else, you piss 'em off, and they may decide to make a 'project' of the premises until they come to a conclusion one way or another. And unless the presence of the animal can be concealed, there are a lot of codes and laws that they have at their disposal to compel either a seizure of the animal, or pursue a criminal complaint.

This is one of those issues that comes down to a question of economics ... is it worthwhile to retain an attorney to fight a $50 licensing fee? My answer would be, "No." But then, I don't have a few thousand dollars sitting around burning a hole in my pocket. And if I really opposed the licensing law or any policy the agency was involved in pursuing, I would consider pursuing changes in those rules so that others would not be bothered.

But then, if taxes and even vehicle registration fees were voluntary, who would pay them? Hence the reason there are mechanisms to provide for avenues of enforcement.

I will have to ask our local Animal Control Officers if they have dealt with a similar situation here ... as it IS an interesting question.

- Carl