Were my 4th Amendment Rights Violated?

[gkisystems]

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

I received a violation notice from the city (Division of Housing Services) stating that:

"A recent inspection of the above referenced property revealed conditions that violate specific codes and/or ordinances of the City of Beloit."

The letter then goes on to state the violations, one of which is for having a "blue tarp" from "the exterior property areas."


Although I do have a blue tarp (a solar cover for my inground swimming pool) in my yard, it is in the rear of the house in the backyard which is entirely surrounded by a fence. It is not visible from the street. The only way the inspector could know it was there is by "inspecting" my property which was done without my permission. I can understand why it might be a problem if it was in the front yard being an eye sore...but come on....who gives them the right to hop my (always locked) fence and snoope around in my backyard?

Do I have grounds for a 4th amendment claim against the city?

 

[justalayman]

how do you know it wasn't from an aerial surveillance. Can't remember the area but one city has collected thousands of dollars in building permit fees for pools that were discovered from aerial surveillance.

Do I have grounds for a 4th amendment claim against the city?

can you prove how they discovered the tarp?

 

[gkisystems]

how do you know it wasn't from an aerial surveillance. Can't remember the area but one city has collected thousands of dollars in building permit fees for pools that were discovered from aerial surveillance.


can you prove how they discovered the tarp?

I can prove the location of the tarp by taking a photo of it and taking a photo of the enclosed and locked fence. I can also take a photo from the street which shows the tarp is not visible. I can also prove that they "admitted" to inspecting my property.

Would this suffice?

 

[proud_parent]

I don't follow. Fourth Amendment protections apply to criminal law. You were cited for a civil infraction.

A property inspection does not equal a search, and you don't mention that anything was seized.

 

[gkisystems]

I don't follow. Fourth Amendment protections apply to criminal law. You were cited for a civil infraction.

A property inspection does not equal a search, and you don't mention that anything was seized.

No, nothing was seized to my knowledge. However, this is not really a civil infraction. I remember reading some case law about how it is a law to curb public behavior and benefit society as a whole, therefore a violation of it is really criminal law. Maybe somebody can help with posting some case law.

 

[justalayman]

I can prove the location of the tarp by taking a photo of it and taking a photo of the enclosed and locked fence. I can also take a photo from the street which shows the tarp is not visible. I can also prove that they "admitted" to inspecting my property.

Would this suffice?

can you prove it wasn't from a fly over? Have you checked Google Earth? It might be on there even.

proud parent; where does it say the 4th applies only to criminal situations?

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.

sounds like criminal or civil is irrelevant.

 

[RoyLDenton]

Fourth Amendment

I have been involved in Fourth Amedment litigation for over 3 years and am not an attorney. I believe that in some ways a person that represents himself has a fool for a client but then again, although I would not play doctor and operate on myself, I would play the role of auto mechanic and fix my own car. Why else did they make a Chilton manual?

In any event, Denton v Rievley (google it) went to the USCA for the 6th Cir on an Interlocutory appeal and to my amazement, the "Not recommended for publishing" opinion is already being cited in Texas. In a way it is gratifying but the flip side, it is scary. The Fourth Amendment doesn't mean much in my opinion INSIDE the home, therefore, how can the OUTSIDE of the home offer you any protection? It doesn't matter if you have a fence or not, your swimming pool is still in "public view". For example, if I were to stand on your neighbors property and grab hold of your fence and raised myself up to peer over it, then you may have a "privacy" claim. However, if I were to be standing on your neighbors back porch and from that vantage point I could see your pool, then your pool is in clear "public view". Furthermore, if I were 1,000 feet awat and was on a rooftop and had an unobstructed sight line to your back yard, and I even used binoculars to hone in on your pool, I have not violated your privacy. As crazy as all this sounds I can cite law after law after law on how much of the Fourth Amendment exists, or should I say "does not exist".

 

[gkisystems]

can you prove it wasn't from a fly over? Have you checked Google Earth?

I checked Google Earth and Bing Maps Bird's Eye view - neither show the tarp in the photos.

Additionally, I will add that the tarp was not just in my back yard, but it was in an area surrounded on 3 sides - 2 sides were my 6 foot tall wooden fence, a 3rd side was my 2 story garage, and the remaining side was open to the rest of my backyard, which is also fenced in with a 6 foot fence. Although you could fly an airplane over the yard and see it or climb a neighbor's roof to see it, it is clearly not in public view.

This leads me to believe that some government employee was on my property without a warrant. If they are allowed to be on my property without a warrant in a locked/gated area, then what is stopping them from entering my locked house?

 

[justalayman]

. Although you could fly an airplane over the yard and see it or climb a neighbor's roof to see it, it is clearly not in public view.

that makes it in public view if there is a person on your neighbors roof or in a plane.

This leads me to believe that some government employee was on my property without a warrant.

that may be the case but until you can prove it, you have nothing.

 

[Zigner]

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again:
City Code Inspectors have great latitude to enter property to inspect for code violations. Nothing illegal about it.

 

[zbergman]

justalayman: I believe that the 4th amendment was defined as a criminal ruling due to the Supreme Court decision of Murray vs. Hoboken Land (1855). I could be wrong, but this is what some recent research tells me.

 

[gkisystems]

justalayman: I believe that the 4th amendment was defined as a criminal ruling due to the Supreme Court decision of Murray vs. Hoboken Land (1855). I could be wrong, but this is what some recent research tells me.

I am not sure that the rights provided to us by the 4th amendment can be limited by the type of violation. For example, if the police broke into your house to search for drugs without a warrant - that would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment. However, if the police broke into your house to search for code violations, wouldn't that also be a violation of your 4th amendment rights?

In other words, the search without a warrant is the thing that violates the 4th amendment - not necessarily what they "claim" to be looking for. If that were the case, the police could conduct a search without a warrant for drugs - but say there were looking for something else (code violations) to get around it.

 

[cyjeff]

Maybe a better question is can the tarp be seen from your neighbor's window?

 

[BOR]

I can understand why it might be a problem if it was in the front yard being an eye sore...but come on....who gives them the right to hop my (always locked) fence and snoope around in my backyard?

Do I have grounds for a 4th amendment claim against the city?

Code Inspectors are constrained by the 4th AM, yes.

Do you have a claim, an attorney in WI needs to address thet, as WI also has a S&S clause.

If it took any herculean effort to get the photo, it probably violates the 4th.

If it was outside of your yard, it was not your curtilage area, but a neighbor's.

When you are cited raise the defense of violations of both Constitution's if you research and believe you have a case.

In any event, Denton v Rievley (google it) went to the USCA for the 6th Cir on an Interlocutory appeal.

That case is about a warrantless arrest, not the Exclusionary rule, and WI is not in the 6th anyway.

 

[BOR]

justalayman: I believe that the 4th amendment was defined as a criminal ruling due to the Supreme Court decision of Murray vs. Hoboken Land (1855). I could be wrong, but this is what some recent research tells me.

The 4th AM was made applicable to the states in 1949, the Exclusionary rule in 1961.

There is no distinction between a government agent enforcing a civil infraction or a criminal one. Some states have traffic laws that are infractions, an officer can still not bypass the 4th AM and stop a motor vehicle without cause.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a seizure under the 4th AM, and the level of offense is not relevant.