Consumption and Real Estate
Is this a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution?
Question : Is this a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution?
A nearby township (like many municipalities) has enacted ordinances preventing homeowners from draining the water from their sump pump into the sewer.
The township also owns the sewage treatment plant, and due to increased volume (which may result in untreated sewage being dumped into a creek), they suspect that many residents are draining their sump pumps into the sewer illegally.
I understand that many areas, when faced with this problem, use inspection of the sewer system and imaging software to determine who is responsible. This township, however, is not doing that.
What this township is doing, is going door to door and requesting to inspect the basement of every home. If the homeowner refuses, they will be assumed to have an illegal connection, and charged $ 75 quarterly.
I understand that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to civil law. Would this be considered civil law (making the township’s actions legal) or not? Is violation of a township ordinance considered to be criminal or civil?
Also, say a homeowner lets the township officials into their home to avoid paying the $ 75. If the township officials notice evidence of drug use or something, and get the police involved, can the homeowner be charged based on what the officials saw?
I don’t live in this township, so it doesn’t affect me, but I’m curious about the implications.
inspection software
Best answer:
Answer by J P
It sounds more like a due process violation to me.
-
-
#2 written by laughter_every_day 1 year ago
The fourth amendment prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure.” that phrase has been examined thousands of times by courts and it is hard to predict a definitive answer. However, administrative inspections, not for purposes of looking for evidence, have been found to be reasonable. If someone doing one of those inspections tells the cops about it, the cops are not obligated to ignore that information. If you really want to know more than this sort of one-line answer, go to a law library, to the section on search and seizure, find a text and read the chapter on administrative inspections, the read all the cases cited in that chapter. That would be a good start.
-
#4 written by dancing_smurf 1 year ago
I believe you have your amendments confused. 4th Amendment deals with searches and seizures as in the case of search warrants and wire taps. The 5th & 14 amendment is what I believe you are talking about in regard to due process. Possibly you are talking about the 10th Amendment which states the State government can have powers not specifically reserved for the federal government such as the power to make treaties and declare war.
First issue you ask is it wrong for the city to charge a $ 75 quarterly charge because someone has refused them entry? Yes it is. The person has a right to consent to allow the inspection or not. If the person is gone, the city has left a notice that they were there, and the owner refuses to follow through then it is their problem. In theory the city should allow a reasonable amount of time from stating they were there before they start charging the $ 75 a quarter usually they should wait 21 – 30 days.
Second issue you ask if there is some illegal activity such as cultivating marijuana can the person be arrested for it? The answer is yes. Why? The person gave consent to check the connection the city worker noticed the illegal activity and reported it.
Third issue is how this law was passed. It appears that the city has complied with the 5 & 14 th amendments in regard to due process. So it has been passed legally.
-
#5 written by raxgoldenbear 1 year ago
Ok in answer to your second question…if you consent to a search, or even allow any government official into your home, for any reason and they see evidence of illegal activity that is it, your busted.
Consent negates ANY 4th Amendment claim.The first part is a little trickier…First it is a substantive due process issue…but as it is only a suspension of economic rights, because you’re being fined, then it is your burden to prove that the law bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. This is known as the rational basis test, and the government almost always wins. Here the fine is attached to the cost of sewer treatment, and if you want to challenge that you have to show a disconnect between that fine and the ends the state is trying to achieve, making sewer treatment cost less…but that is exactly what the effect of the fine will be…
Next comes the balancing test of procedural due process. The court would weigh the private interest, against the risk of error in the proceudre against the government interests involved. Basically what that means is that your private interest (remoinvg the sewage from your home) is measurted against the risk of error in the procedure, which is actually relatively high because there is no way to assure that the violation is not occuring without allowing the government to inspect, against the government interst, which is once again the cost of sewage. That is where they have the key, the risk of error is slight ($ 75) against the cost of sewage treatment, which is somewhat higher.
What this regulation looks like is a nuisance issue, they want to inspect and are summarily charging you for not letting them do so. I would contact your local county bar association and ask them to refer you to an attorney who would adivse you on the best course of action.
The government cannot force you to allow a search of your home…
-
#6 written by macruadhi 1 year ago
Sorry, The 4th amendment only applies to the Federal Government. Unless there is a the same rule in the state constitution, I am not sure what can be done about it, call a civil attorney.
The city officials can relay what they saw to the authorities, a warrant may be issued, and then the homeowner will be charged according to what is found by the police.
-
#8 written by The Republican 1 year ago
Amendment IV:
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.
This is clearly not a violation of the fourth amendment. The key word in the amendment is unreasonable. This would not be an unreasonable search.
And if the officials find drugs in the home, the cops CAN seize it. It’s in plain sight.
Macruadhi, you are wrong. State Constitutions have to fall in line with the federal constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. EVERYONE must abide by the US Constitution, it’s not just for federal crimes.
- Comment Feed for this Post
it is administrative contract law, as are all laws with no victim, an ordinance is colorable law and there must be a contract that you have to argue under the UCC 1-207 as an invalid unilateral contract!