Order to Vacate?

[ultimateace]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri, Kansas City


So there was a knock at my door, upon answering the door found 3 individuals, 2 from the water department and one from the city's dangerous buildings administration. The water department workers relayed the information that due to a past due bill they were turning the water to my residence off , the city admin guy then shows proceeds to post the door with large orange notice to vacate sticker, citing no water. (which at the time it was posted still was on).

My questions are many but will try to keep the list short.

1. would the 4th amendment bar this action as illegal seizure in that it was not a court order, rather administrative.
2. also due process maybe since the action was taken then the prescribed remedy would be to request a hearing, which takes 10 days. I would think that the importance of the home as established by the Supreme Court of the US over the years would tend to protect a person from being shuffled from their home and task them with the burden to take measures to reenter.
3. RSMO 479 provides for administrative hearings to deal with things such as municiple codes, traffic etc. but it specific limits moving violations and confinement from that list, would this not show intent to keep the admin. hearings power limited? would this power to remove one from a house not seemingly overstep this?
4. According to city code, the inspector must first investigate the alleged violation then do the order. How could one investigate prior to the water being shut off (the notices were all neatly typed obviously prior to being at my house). The building code nor any other ordinance prohibits other sources of water such as rain barells, wells, etc. and this house was annexed by the city instead of being built in the city limits.

Oh for the record was able to get the water paid 1 hour later turned on by 4:30 even so I am illegally in the house subject to arrest for trespassing (I so hope it happens) because have to get a reinspection and reoccupancy permit.

Any thoughts on this would be welcome just thinking about how badly the city of KCMO steps on the law and just about every turn.

 

[racer72]

Nothing in your post suggests anything was illegal.

1. The city is not seizing your property.
2. No one is denying you due process.
3. Not even close. There is likely a code that states all residences will have running water to be considered habitable. I would bet the notices you received about your past due water bill and that your water will be shut off if the bill is not paid is enough warning for you to take action.
4. Watching the worker's shut off your water is good enough.

 

[ultimateace]

1. The city is not seizing your property.
in effect they are- they are violating common law principle of quiet enjoyment. a person obtains property with the full expectation of being able to use it. an order to vacate by the city (without before the courts) would seam to seize that part of the property..

3. Not even close. There is likely a code that states all residences will have running water to be considered habitable. I would bet the notices you received about your past due water bill and that your water will be shut off if the bill is not paid is enough warning for you to take action.
-here i had purposely omitted that the water bill in question was included an a US chapter 13 case that is still active, the water dept never responded to the notice (the case is 15 months old) (They will be answering question about this to the federal judge as I have a hearing scheduled)
4. Watching the worker's shut off your water is good enough. -? how so. had the city investigator never even checked to see that there was and active back flow permit . (which is required when there is another source of water attached to the water lines that could 'contaminate the city's water). I would liken this to a police officer arresting someone for a crime just because they were at the scene.