I’m not sure, I am writing this post to spur discussion.

The 4 Amendment states;

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.

I guess the way I look at it is if a property owner gives permission to inspect their property by government officials it is okay, but without that permission, I’m not sure how they have the right to inspect (except from the public right-of-way or aerial view).

I think by allowing this in Lincoln County we are going down a very slippery slope of government intrusion of our private property.

15 Thoughts on “Do Lincoln County officials have a legal right to inspect properties?

  1. Dan Daily on March 26, 2015 at 1:26 pm said:

    Government has become but another intruder you must protect yourself from. When approached, your response should always be ‘No’. If you must be specific, ‘Only with my attorney present and recorded’. There was a time when citizens could cooperate. They lost our respect and can’t get it back.

  2. Minnehaha County and other counties have done this in the past. It is nothing new. I would suggest you move to Lincoln County and try it out in court.

  3. Ol'Bubbleguts on March 26, 2015 at 7:51 pm said:

    Dan did the bully LEO pull machine guns on you too?
    GTFO poo falls,dunno if IoWa enable cheaper shopping
    like how you buy shit in Minnossda yer free to rent a room off me.Town is 600 strong no takeout out pizza hoagie joints out here.Did you get thrown in jail when you started fighting the fuckers?
    I fear the last time I was in jail caught something
    there are some serious scumbags in MHC jail.
    Funny thing is the crummy neck tattoo crowd are all
    trustees getting favors from our corrupt gvmt enforcers.PRIVLEDGE don’t buy it.Specially from our jailers.Do you know it takes 2 hours to deliver psychotropic SSRI pharmacological poison to 80 guys?
    I pray I didn’t get Tuberculosis while I was there.

    OBG
    THIS MADNESS ENDS NOW

  4. You don’t have to let them in, but the county can get a court order to inspect the property. If you do not let them in they will evaluate your property based on comparables in your neighborhood. I expect my taxes to go up $1100 a year after Lincoln county gets me in the cross hairs.

    My mother was an accessor in another county. She assessed every property every 5 years. This is not a new tactic.

  5. Dan Daily on March 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm said:

    LJL, I lived in Colorado awhile back. All taxes are high but income tax doesn’t kick in til 25k and there’s a property tax stop so you’ll not be priced out of your home. Local government must be careful not to force us out to cheaper less indebted neighboring cities. What was especially good about Colorado was you could sign an affidavit stating you’re self employed and (state law) qualify for health insurance. Not important now (Obama care) but lots of cancer patients moved there then.

    Bubbleguts, you’re kinda out there. Not your fault. When you’ve been tormented by the city for years upon years, you start into radical perhaps psycho. You were wise leaving Guantanimo for a friendly smaller community that’s constitutionally guaranteed democracy. In many respects, I envy you. I’d decide to live somewhere like Harrisburg or Brandon when Lloyd starts building townhomes there. It’s becoming impossible to live and thrive in Sioux Falls.

  6. rufusx on March 27, 2015 at 3:53 pm said:

    “unreasonable” – Thats the key word among those others. What is reasonable and what is not is INTERPETABLE. What one party may find reasonable – another may not. The final determination – under the LAW is what the courts find reasonable or not.

    Inspections of properties for various reasons (compliance with ordinances, assessment, pursuit of a criminal, etc.) have been perfectly legal in many, many hundreds of cases. In fact, the right to entry, for purposes of inspection is actually codified in city ordinances. That code includes the process that LJL refers to above.

    Actually testing this (and other theories about rights and government behaviors, etc.) out in the courts is of course NOT something you will undertake. That will be left to others.

  7. rufusx on March 27, 2015 at 3:55 pm said:

    Dan – If you think it’s cheaper to live in the outlying metro cities – I invite you to give it a try. You’ll then learn something.

  8. l3wis on March 27, 2015 at 8:06 pm said:

    Ruf, are you a fascist in disguise? 🙂

  9. teatime on March 27, 2015 at 8:10 pm said:

    Utilities tend to be higher in the surrounding towns, one I know of has water 2x SF rates. Plus you spend on gas going back into SF. Also, the taxes are catching up quickly to SF. Nothing certain but death and taxes, as the old saying goes.

  10. Code Enforcement on March 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm said:

    ruf there is such a thing called a search warrant in this country and unless you missed a basic lesson in civics. If an inspection is required by a government agency on private property of any kind in this country a court order is required. How ****** are you anyway?

  11. rufusx on March 27, 2015 at 11:58 pm said:

    No – I am a realist. You certainly seem to have a lot of tea bags lying about on your coffee table.

  12. rufusx on March 28, 2015 at 11:39 am said:

    CE – search =/= inspection. Search warrants are typically issued in relation to CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES. Administrative warrants are what are issued when a property owner refuses to allow an authorized official from entering their property for an inspection.

    FWIW – all governmental authority to enter properties is based on the nature of property laws. The real property most people MISTAKENLY believe they “own” is actually owned by THE STATE. What self-imagined “property owners” really do own is a fee-simple TITLE. That is – a document that ENTITLES them to occupy and use the real estate – CONDITIONALLY. The conditions being that they pay their “rent fee” (commonly known as property taxes) and that their uses of said real estate do not violate any LAWS or ORDINANCES. Failure to meet the conditions (set by the landlord – the state) lead to FORFIETURE of the entitlement.

    Yes – BOTH the state – and the entitled occupant are required to follow the law. But the law CLEARLY defines who is ultimately in charge. And it ain’t the renter – or “fee holder”.

  13. Dan Daily on March 28, 2015 at 3:24 pm said:

    Soon, drones circling your home peaking in windows. Vigilantes taking them out with super squirter tubes and paint ball CO2. They spend 250k for new tech that you take out with a 20 buck toy. Reminds me of the 100k traffic cameras that can’t read license plates sprayed with refective two dollar poly.

  14. Code Enforcement on March 29, 2015 at 10:33 am said:

    ruf surely shows how little he understands the American Constitution and our basic property ownership rights.

  15. i12doit on April 1, 2016 at 2:19 am said:

    This is clearly the guilty until proven innocent mentality of the State. It’s assumed the citizens are dishonest and have not purchased proper permits when upgrading their property, thus shorting Caesar. An end around the constitution, which isn’t worth the hemp it is written on in South Dakota.

Post Navigation