No claim against the officer. He has very broad discretion, and if you allowed people to sue every time a deputy negligently misinterpreted the law, the courts would be jammed. The only claim you might make stick would be a state law trespass claim against the inspector herself, but in my opinion, a jury is not going to award significant damages in this scenario.
Legal right to be in a given location is a pivotal concept for any valid search. The health inspector is quite obviously conducting an investigation, if she was not, she would have no reason to enter the property at all.
I have been reading the link, in the link the plantiff seems to be trying to repel any government contact with his property even if legal. A tax assessor would have the right to enter for purposes of determining tax status, and serving a notice at his front door. If he happens to see a meth lab, he is not endowed with the right to pursue that, he would contact the police, who would have probable cause based on the observations of the tax assessor to get a warrant.
Personally if I was the homeowner I would consider the tresspass issue irrelevant seeking compensation on the 4th amendment side. A health inspector has little authority over a residential home without some pretty compelling cause since the simple presence of constuction activity does not imply a public health risk.
But the court is saying that it is may not be a “search” at all, for purposes of interpreting the 4th Amendment. See the court’s language about the “open field” doctrine, and the language about what constitutes a search within the “curtilage” of the house.
It certainly could imply a public health risk, if the digging suggests installation of a septic system in an area not suited for it. We don’t know everything the inspector knows in this case. For all we know, she may have seen something from the road that looked like installation of a septic system, and then pulled the record and found that no soil tests had been done and no septic permit issued.
He was probably planting a garden.
What makes you say that?
Ok, I can see where most likely it was a valid move on her part.
IIRC one of the things that was emphasized to us in my investigation class was the intent of our presence. A city/county investigator looking to check for code compliance on something relevant to their job duties is generally fine and is spelled in the permitting process. Entering* for the purposes of conducting an investigation*, I was taught, she probably should have a warrant and should be able to get one easily if she can show cause. If they had produced one, this whole video would be irrelevant and he would have no debatable case at all. If there was inappropriate handling of a septic tank install it would still be more the purview of the building inspector IMHO not the health department.
With a backhoe?
Not here in VA. The permitting and inspection of on-site septic systems is under the authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health. They (the inspectors) usually have local offices, but they are emloyees of the Commonwealth and not of the counties, cities, or towns.
Here in the U.K., we have a concept called ‘Statutory Right of Entry’; do you have something similar in the U.S.?
Liability plays into this - I seem to remember that in the eyes of the law there are three (and only three) types of people on your property - people who have been invited by the property owner to their property. Then, there are civilian jobs who by virtue of their job have to be able to their job without seeking express permission every instance - like the mailman, meter reader, dog-catcher, etc. Thirdly, there are trespassers.
Legally, that’s it. Places with known troubles with trespassers (a junk or salvage yard for example) are held to a bit higher standard with regard to trespassers. Kind of off the subject but pertinent.
Here’s the Indiana trespass statute (which I think the guy was trying to cite, but was giving the wrong number):
[emphasis added]
So, bottom line:
No constitutional violation and no trespass. The jackass with the videocamera is SOL.
And I note that one of the comments to the video says the guy filed a suit which was thrown out in March.
That comment also says he was represented in the suit by “New York lawyer Jackie Chiles,” who, IIRC, was a character on Seinfeld.
Damn. This happened in the county I live in.
Was there a railroad on his property? I don’t get your point. What contractual interest did she have?
The health inspector was working in her capacity as a law enforcement officer and was engaged in the performance of her duties, and therefore is not subject to the trespass statute.
I think that was just a snarky comment on the type of jackleg lawyer who would have represented him.
When did mounds of dirt require inspecting?
Based on the film, She made no statement justifying her actions. “Health Inspector” is not a license to trespass. It requires a reason. That’s where the term “probable cause” comes in. She could just as easily decide your clothes are ratty looking and invade your house.
So what? You think she was required to make a statement for the benefit of this jackass’s documentary?
She had a good reason for the inspection, from what I saw. The guy has a backhoe, mounds of dirt, and some sewer line piping next to a trailer he has apparently moved onto the lot. This screams septic tank installation. Furthermore, if you listen carefully she seems to confirm that she had a telephone informant telling her what was going on. Since this was her second trip to the lot, I think it is safe to presume that she had checked and found that the guy didn’t have a septic permit.
Apparently it is, looking at the statute, so long as she is acting within the scope of her duties.
He asked her for a reason and she didn’t give one. Yes, absolutely she should have to justify her presence. Otherwise she’s just trolling.
I agree a septic tank would be a good reason… for a county engineer to investigate. She walked all over the property taking pictures with no stated purpose.