BooneCountyGirl
skyler the weird
Rick Barton
Joe
Wiley Coyote
From The TSA To Your Home: Random Searches
What is that saying about those who would choose security over freedom deserve neither?
What I hoped would be a productive and somewhat sublime time in my life has turned into an age of daily shocks to my freedom-loving core. Though I have watched the national and international news for years with great concern, I felt there were enough people in our country who understood the connection between security and freedom; that without freedom there is no security. And I believed that the reason to secure our nation was to preserve freedom. I have believed that the U.S. Constitution stood between me and tyrants. It did. And it should.
So what brings me to the appalling realization that 1) the U.S. Constitution is no longer guiding our leadership, and 2) I am no longer surrounded by people who believe in the same tenets in that founding document? The first one there is easy. Obviously we are subjected now to a dictator in the White House who has set up a national politburo. A Soviet model of governance has taken over our land. But even so, I have had hopes that freedom-loving, Constitutional-believing Americans would not stand for such destruction of freedom.
I’ve been hoping for something that I now believe has left the planet. The Faith of Our Fathers has died with them. We have people in this nation who hold zero understanding of freedom and zero respect for the U.S. Constitution. And these people are not just in D.C., as I had hoped.
We are down to the nubs, folks. The “Code Enforcement” department in our fine small city of Gastonia has come up with an ordinance requiring random searches of people’s homes and apartments. In studying the ordinance, I have discovered the section on random searches comes directly from the State of North Carolina, a statute that authorizes any City Council to direct random searches upon the residences and commercial buildings in the city. Why random? To avoid discrimination lawsuits. Hmmmm – does that sound familiar? Political correctness? Heaven knows we cannot appear to be discriminating in our judgment of which areas of blight we target, so we will just subject the entire city to random searches. Oh, did I remember to say these searches are without warrants?
This is not about terrorism, though we have some in our city who want the power for that reason, too. No. This is about cleaning up blighted poor areas where criminals live. The police department here is frustrated with getting repeat complaints for the same houses and apartments. So instead of arresting and jailing the perpetrators of the disorderly conduct or crimes, the police department has gone to the City Council for help. The “help” turns out to be a new program to teach landlords how to deal with disorderly tenants; random searches and seizures without warrants; fees placed on landlords (which are really fines, but the authors of the ordinance evidently don’t know the difference between a fee and a fine), and arbitrary judgment of City Council members to decide which areas shall be targeted.
Who in our NC State government has the audacity to write such an un-Constitutional legislative directive? I don’t know, but I continually ask myself “who are these people and where in God’s name did they come from?”
The State statute is this: § 160A‑424. Periodic inspections.
Part of it reads as follows:
In conducting inspections authorized under this section, the inspection department shall not discriminate between single‑family and multifamily buildings. In exercising this power, members of the department shall have a right to enter on any premises within the jurisdiction of the department at all reasonable hours for the purposes of inspection or other enforcement action, upon presentation of proper credentials.
(b) A city may require periodic inspections as part of a targeted effort within a geographic area that has been designated by the city council. The municipality shall not discriminate in its selection of areas or housing types to be targeted and shall (i) provide notice to all owners and residents of properties in the affected area about the periodic inspections plan and information regarding a public hearing regarding the plan; (ii) hold a public hearing regarding the plan; and (iii) establish a plan to address the ability of low‑income residential property owners to comply with minimum housing code standards
It does say something about “reasonable cause,” such as violations of safety hazard codes, unsanitary conditions, substandard conditions, etc. But nowhere in the statute is the requirement for a warrant to enter someone’s privately owned property. And is anyone concerned that a City Council should be given the power to order targeting of areas for unwarranted searches? I don’t know about you, but I’ve known some City Council members who would target people for all sorts of untoward reasons, none of which have anything to do with safety hazards or blight.
So try to take a flight somewhere, you will be subjected to random searches. Stay home and you could be subjected to random searches. The State of North Carolina says that’s just fine with them. Our City Council inadvertently passed this ordinance without knowing what was in it. (Nancy Pelosi disease is evidently running rampant.) Now the problem has been brought to their attention and the ordinance will be re-visited and re-done. But were it not for some vigilant citizens bringing the problem to their attention, this would be the law of our fine city.
What’s the moral of this story? The United States Constitution is being slashed and burned. We have people in government in this country and in our State who are creating a system of government we don’t recognize and don’t want. If they can sneak it by us, they will do it. And they are. While you are working your tail off to keep up with the price of the necessities of life, there are people among us who are working just as hard to destroy the nation…and the world.
That’s my little story today; wondering what you think of it.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=8712
cheryl,i was moved by the importance and passion of your article.your phrase,”an age of daily shocks to my freedom-loving core”,rings so true.
the implementation of the globalist police state hits one with hurricane force bravado everyday in this quickening of tyranny.i am cheered to know that a remenant still remains that can at least still distinguish the corellation between security and freedom.keep up the good fight,hopefully some more rowers for the oars will step up.
“Liberty a word without which all other words are vain.” ~ Robert Ingersoll
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Someone needs to raise a constitutional challenge to this statute. This “random” search power is likely to be abused by those who are seeking more control over anyone who fail to fall in line with the government’s programs. After all, the FBI has recently issued warnings about right wing terrorist groups that are inclined to challenge government authority.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
You left out an important part of the law, the beginning:
§ 160A‑424. Periodic inspections.
(a) The inspection department may make periodic inspections, subject to the council’s directions, for unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise hazardous and unlawful conditions in buildings or structures within its territorial jurisdiction. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the inspection department may make periodic inspections only when there is reasonable cause to believe that unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise hazardous or unlawful conditions may exist in a residential building or structure. For purposes of this section, the term “reasonable cause” means any of the following: (i) the landlord or owner has a history of more than two verified violations of the housing ordinances or codes within a 12‑month period; (ii) there has been a complaint that substandard conditions exist within the building or there has been a request that the building be inspected; (iii) the inspection department has actual knowledge of an unsafe condition within the building; or (iv) violations of the local ordinances or codes are visible from the outside of the property. In conducting inspections authorized under this section, the inspection department shall not discriminate between single‑family and multifamily buildings. In exercising this power, members of the department shall have a right to enter on any premises within the jurisdiction of the department at all reasonable hours for the purposes of inspection or other enforcement action, upon presentation of proper credentials. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit periodic inspections in accordance with State fire prevention code or as otherwise required by State law.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Wiley, the statute has serious problems of constitutionality. What you are citing here is part of the vague language and open door to abuse of the 4th amendment. There is an analysis of this statute with questions and answers at a UNC website. Copying for you below is just one aspect of the statute that allows for huge expansion of powers under the statute.
Inspections as Part of a Targeted Effort within a Geographic Area21. The law offers an exception to the reasonable cause requirements for “targeted efforts within a geographic area that has been designated” by the governing board. How does a governing board designate a geographic area for a “targeted effort”?
In selecting a geographic area for a targeted effort, a governing board “shall not discriminate in its selection of areas . . . to be targeted.” The statute does not explain how a governing board can select a geographic area without discriminating in its selection of areas. The very act of selecting an area, after all, involves discriminating between areas. One way to avoid discrimination entirely is to divide the entire jurisdiction into zones and assign targeted areas on a rotating basis at some regular interval, such as annually. For example, say that a city was divided into ten zones and the inspections department was staffed to handle a targeted effort in only two zones in a single year. The first two zones could be targeted during the first year, the next two zones targeted in the second year, and so on, such that every zone will have been targeted by the end of a five-year period. In this way, every neighborhood in the entire jurisdiction would eventually be subject to targeting and therefore no discrimination between areas would occur. An objection to the rotating zone system described above is that it would waste time and resources on areas of no concern, suggesting that this strict reading of the statute is strained. A looser reading and more practical approach would dictate the establishment of neutral criteria for selecting areas at some specified time interval—without predetermining which areas will be targeted. For example, a local government could establish a program in which at the beginning of each year, the three neighborhoods with the highest numbers of housing code complaints in the prior year will be selected for targeting in the coming year. Such supposedly neutral criteria have not been tested in court, and at the time of this writing, no case law clarifies whether this approach meets the requirement that governing boards “shall not discriminate” when selecting areas to be targeted.
19. An early draft of S.L. 2011-281 prohibited inspection departments from discriminating “between owner-occupied and tenant-occupied buildings or structures,” but that language was removed prior to enactment.
I wonder who wants to be at the mercy of bureaucrats or city councils who wish to target entire sections of their town on a rotating basis for “inspections” without warrants?” Volunteers anyone?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Sorry, I don’t see any sinister aspects of a municipality having ordinances in place for building inspections for rental properties.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Cheryl,
Exactly right…. But I have come to believe that liberals will do almost anything to avoid dealing with the core problems at hand, so they write “feel good” laws or ordinances that achieve nothing but erode the freedoms of those who pay the bills.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Following up on this: From today’s Gaston Gazette, the public hearing will be held on March 6th at City Hall. The paper indicates the council will vote on the measure “after the hearing.” If that means they are planning to vote that night, it means they will not even give the pretense of re-visiting the ordinance after hearing from the public, but will proceed with it as it is written. Which, in my estimation, makes the public hearing nothing more than a Kangaroo court. I guess we’ll find out on March 6th.
I like what Hal has quoted here – “Liberty a word without which all other words are vain.” ~ Robert Ingersoll Thanks, Hal.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Read #7 where it says all searches must comply with the 4th Amendment…..
B. Periodic Inspection Programs
Reasonable Cause
6. When are local governments permitted to conduct periodic inspections? Prior to enactment of the IPR law, a local government could establish almost any parameters for a program of periodic building inspections. Inspections could be required annually or on some other interval—whatever the inspections department deemed necessary. That flexibility remains in place for nonresidential buildings, but under the IPR law, residential buildings or structures may be inspected only when there is reasonable cause for the inspection. “Reasonable cause” is defined to mean any of the following:
••The landlord or owner has a history of more than two verified violations of the housing ordinances or codes within a 12-month period.
••There has been a complaint that substandard conditions exist within the building or there has been a request that the building be inspected.
••The inspection department has actual knowledge of an unsafe condition within the building.
••Violations of the local ordinances or codes are visible from the outside of the property.
Therefore, a local government is not permitted to conduct a periodic inspection of a residential building unless one or more of the conditions listed above are present to establish reasonable cause. However, the law offers an exception to the reasonable cause requirement for “targeted efforts within a geographic area that has been designated” by the governing board. This exception for “targeted efforts” is discussed below in Questions 21 through 24.
7. Once reasonable cause is established under the IPR law, is the inspection department empowered to conduct an immediate inspection without further process?
No. All inspections must be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches. Prior to inspecting a dwelling, the inspector must first obtain the consent of the occupant or an administrative inspection warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances.
To request an administrative inspection warrant for a periodic inspection, an inspector submits an affidavit form provided by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. Each type of inspection has its own affidavit form, so an inspector should submit the form that corresponds to the type of to the type of inspection to be conducted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The writer of the article you are citing is saying what I am saying….that the inspections must be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the 4th Amendment….but the State statute does not require that. He is saying it should. I am saying it not only should but it doesn’t!!!! And….I am saying you cannot get a warrant for an entire “targeted area” because how would you justify that? So the statute is fatally flawed…that is my point. And now we have my city and others using it for these ordinances.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
According to what I have read, it IS required.
Also, read question 6, which states the law was actually strengthened.
Much of this code has been in place for 40 years.
The affidavits to obtain inspection warrants was last revised in 2000: http://www.enr.state.nc.us/docs/adminwarrantrepeated.pdf
From the NC Bar Association, February 14, 2012:
The establishment of reasonable cause under the IPR law does not exempt inspectors from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches. See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 539–40 (1967). Prior to inspecting a dwelling, an inspector must first obtain the consent of the occupant or an administrative inspection warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances. If parameters for an inspection program are set forth in an ordinance or policy as described in the preceding paragraph, an inspector could use that policy as a method of obtaining an administrative inspection warrant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15-27.2.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Wiley, the State statute I am citing was written and / or revised and passed last year, not 2000.. I agree with that NC Bar Assoc. paragraph …exactly that the Camara v. Municipal Court is the precedent case that supports the warrant and that “reasonable cause” is not enough. You seem to be missing the point that the State statute does not include the warrant requirement, only “reasonable cause:…. and that my city council is relying on the statute passed last year as the justification for their ordinance. Also, with targeting geographic areas for inspections, I cannot see how a warrant could be obtained for each individual house, so …what can justify that? Maybe you are not understanding me, but that is what I am saying.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
What you’re referring to is an update which has already been in place for decades. The forms I posted for a warrant to search haven’t been updated since 2000.
The updated version, as I previously stated, was actually strengthened to prevent what your “fear” is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I am not sure which part of this is more shocking – that statutes such as this exist or that there are people in our country who would write them in the first place. The fact that Wiley could defend such an affront to liberty, while not surprising, is perhaps the most distasteful element of all.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Even though much of this code enforcement has been in place since the 70′s and for rental properties?
Affront to liberty?
What a joke.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Let me predict… Code enforcement will show up at a property and show some paperwork to a property owner that he will not understand and the property owner will either become enraged and do something stupid resulting in jail or lay down like a slug and let them have their way.
Either way liberty loses.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
…and people living in squalor or substandard dwellings while the landlord gets a free pass?
Yep, those people who pay their rent lose…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No one is suggesting that landlords get a free pass for something they are actually responsible for, Wiley. The problem is, in this case, the landlords are being held responsible for what other people are doing, instead of arresting the perps and putting them in jail We have a revolving door justice system, so the perps are back out on the streets and in the neighborhoods. Now what the statute is supporting is holding landlords responsible for what their tenants are doing. How does that work in your mind?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
They are free to move. Or they can file a complaint and a WARRANT can be issued.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Wiley,
This whole thing in my opinion is about the police looking for criminals in public housing, which is a cesspool of crime to the average person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0