I think the guy is correct in that she needed a warrant to enter onto his property without his permission. Does this guy have a likely successful path with a criminal and/or civil suit with the officials involved?
IANAL but I believe the property owner was basically correct in this case. Otherwise, police could come search come search anyone’s property any time they felt like it just because they claim they suspect something. That would make the concept of a judicial search warrant and probable cause moot.
I don’t know if this is a rural legend but it seemed to be true growing up in a rural area. Game wardens were the only government officials with broader rights of trespass than other law enforcement officers just because of the nature of their job. I know that friends and family encountered them deep inside their own property and they couldn’t be deterred.
They are going to make him rich. You dont trample a persons contitutional rights,even in neocon times. These law suits can get huge.
What galls me is that this guy had to sit there and take it because if he attempted in any way to stop the illegal trespass, he would’ve been arrested by the ignorant sheriff’s deputy, or worse, shot.
From the hip, don’t Health Inspectors have some leeway in making surprise inspections?
Building inspectors can as well. A Firefighter and incidentally the attending cops can come in with a bogus fire call.
Warrants are relatively meaningless.
So, uh, what happens in the video?
Marc
There’s this girl, and she’s sitting in a diner, and she’s reading a comic about this cute motorcycle racer, and then he winks at her, and his hand reaches out of the comic book, and pulls her into his pencil-drawn world, and then these two guys come after them swinging wrenches, and then suddenly the guy and the girl are in Altered States, and then they both cry. It’s pretty neat.
Um… Cervaise, did you mean to post a description of Aha’s “Take On Me” video to a thread debating whether or not tresspassing occured in the video linked in the OP? 
To get back on topic, I’m not sure. What was the cause of the woman being out there in the first place? I think it comes down to did she really have reasonable suspicion or not.
Things like heath inspections and building inspections are signed off as part of the permits for those respective business type. When you get your health dept permits, you give them permission to inspect at will in exchange for permission to operate a food service establishment or perform construction.
4th amendment:
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.
It looked like the lady was only taking pictures of things that were already in “plain sight” and if she thought she saw something, she can enter the property and inspect. You don’t need a warrant for every little thing but if you obtain evidence in abrogation of the 4th amendment the penalty is that you can’t use it against the defendant not a gazillion dollar lawsuit.
Please. The guy’s a crank. Here’s an appellate decision in a lawsuit brought by a similar crank under similar circumstances. Didn’t turn out so well for the crank.
What the inspector did is a simple trespass, but it is not a violation of constitutional rights. Only a jury of cranks would award anything more than nominal damages for this trespass, particularly the way the “victim” was mouthing off and shouting “You’re gonna make me rich!” Not exactly endearing behavior.
Chris, where were you?
I DON’T KNOW!!!
Marc
Bless you, sir.
I can see good arguments either way on the trespass issue, but I am just dying to know what the hell the guy was doing. Putting in a septic tank? Burying dead animals? Pushing dirt around as a hobby? The suspense is killing me.
Wll, section 35-42 of the Indiana code is easily available online, and it only deals with crimes against persons, not property crimes or the rights and duties of government officials in any situations. There’s a lot of information on child molesters and sex crimes though. That may explain why the sherriff looked so perplexed when he spouted the numbers.
Using your cite I would say it is not tresspassing either. Good cite.
What rights does he have to sue the deputy as he allowed the woman to illegally trespass even though he was asked to stop her? Would that be some sort of rights violation or just general negligence on the deputy’s part?
Watched the video
OK IANAL and fire investigation class was a long time ago but. Plain view doctrine would only apply if you had the legal right to be there in the first place. If she had no legal right to enter the property any evidence she collected once inside the property line would be inadmissable.
If they had some kind of solid probable cause to enter the property, she would have done so and let the deputy keep him at bay. The hesitance of the deputy to assist in backing the property owner doen makes me feel like he knew he was in a legal grey area at best. Just being a health inspector does not grant you any special trespass rights that I am aware of except where surrendered for health permit required businesses/events. If he was involved in unpermitted construction IMHO a building inspector would have probable cause to enter and inspect within the scope of his duties but a health inspector would seem to have little authority in a residential search without some damn good reasons for which she would probably have obtained a warrant before coming out.
No, there were state law trespassing claims asserted which the court specifically did not address:
The court is telling the plaintiff that he doen’t have a claim for violation of his 4th Amendment rights (no federal law claim), but that he may or may not have a claim for trespass under state law. And the court is telling him that he will have to pursue any claims under state law (including trespass) in state court (not federal court). The plaintiff would be free to turn around and sue for trespass in state court.
I just can’t imagine the jury awarding the plaintiff anything more than nominal damages for trespass, in either that case or the one in the OP. (Particularly in the case linked in the OP, given how much of a jackass the guy made of himself.)
Edit: drachillix, you are conflating trespass (a state law claim) with unawful search in violation of the 4th Amendment (a federal law claim). Please read the case I linked. It explains constitutional issues in some detail.