[CTRL] Belleville, IL and rights

[Zuukie]

-Caveat Lector- This reply to my Belleville post may be of interest to those who read the first post:   J.D. Abolins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]   > It wouldn't surprise me if this became a trend in the future under the > Sustainability developments for towns, though I don't think this is > the case here.  Could this be happening elsewhere?  I don't know. [...] > http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/4691498.htm   Actually various ploys to conduct searches that collide with the Fourth Amendment have been going on in different places for years.   Some such searches are conducted in poor, mostly Black or other minority neighborhoods. So the general media doesn't pick up on them.   For example, there was a reported dragnet of a Washington Heights neighborhood in New York City several years ago. Several blocks were blockaded. Everybody going in or out had to show ID. The police went door to door and demanded proof of "belonging there" from every person they found. This was done as an "anti-drugs" move.   With different sets of concerns, the home inspections become a pretext for entry. In the Illinois cases, occupancy was the stated concern. Elsewhere, it can be drugs or terrorism. Sustainability is less likely to lead to using this ploy because other methods of detection are available. But if the sustainability concerns in the future include things such as what pets one has (dogs and cats can be deemed a danger to certain threatend species), then pretext might be employed.   Once the resident has allowed the officials in, plain sight/sound/smell rules apply. Refusing to let the official in is a classic safeguard, one that the particular officials tried to penalize. (Most likely charge they used was an "obstruction" one. The mere "obstruction" is the offense and doesn't require a warrant and, thus, no probable cause that the resident was violating the law.   Obstruction charges are very fluid. Ask too many questions of an officer and take up "too much time" and you can be hit with such a charge. (See http://cryptome.org/bressi.htm for a complaint from a motorist whose "crime" was apparently asking too many questions about the validity of a joint police-INS-Customs checkpoint on a highway.)   But even if one allows the officials in, it does help to state that one objects to the de facto search and that one has given consent under the propsect of arrest or criminal citations.   One thing that really can affect one's rights is whether or not one "owns" the home. Apartment dwellers and house renters are in a precarious position because the landlord and his agents can give the officials the permission for access. In some communities, the officials are even encouraging property owners, especially landlords, to sign away their Fourth Amendment rights. (See http://www.meydaonline.com/blog/archives/20020826.htm for an example.)   In such a case the Constitutional protection of tenants as individuals is challenged by the property owner's rights (albeit not enumerated directly in the Bill of Rights) to allow access to the property. Being a homeowner has some advantages. But some homeowners will sign away their kids rights and protections.   One big danger of the sign-away rights trend is that rights become commodities. Sell yourself and others into slavery for some perks or conveniences.   Semi-satirical prediction:   By mid-decade, the IRS and/or local tax boards will offer "discounts" if you sign away various Constitution protections. They'll claim it makes the government's job easier and, thus, saves money for them.   Sign away the First Amendment and you get a 5% discount. You just have to stay away from protests against government policies, not affiliate with any unapproved religions, don't talk to the press, and don't wast the government's time petition it. They're much too busy to be biothered with citizen's views. What do the citizens know anyway about running an empire... oops... a republic?   Sign away the Fourth and save time and money with all those pesky search and seizure case. Sign away the protections against cruel adn unusual punishment and help bring in revenue for the government new "reality shows" along the lines of Judge Judy Meets Fear Factor.   J.D. Abolins   And from a lawyer friend:     Wow!  These persecuted residents should consider a "Section 1983" federal action against their municipality for intentionally violating their civil rights.  This is BLATANT!     <A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om