POLL: Should Officers Have 'Right of Entry,' in Animal Cases?
Aldermen were split on the 'right of entry,' for city police and animal control officers in animal cases, and so are Patch's readers. Now, it's time to voice your opinion on the issue.
Oak Forest aldermen sparked a heated debate during a March 12 city council meeting, while discussing revisions to the Oak Forest animal control ordinance. The lengthy discussion centered on a police or animal control officer's 'right of entry,' to a resident's property.
Aldermen's discussion spilled over to the Oak Forest Patch Facebook page and on the original article's comment thread, with readers wary of the power of the original wording of the revisions.
Below is the original wording of the revision to the ordinance, which was struck from the revisions that the city council passed.
“For the purpose of carrying out the provision of this chapter, a police officer, animal control officer or any other City official charged with enforcing this code, may enter upon private premises the purposes of investigating a complaint of either an actual or suspected violation, to determine compliance or noncompliance with this Ordinance or to apprehend an at-large animal, a dangerous animal, or an animal infected with rabies.”
Take a look at what Oak Forest residents are saying about an officer's 'right of entry.'
Colleen Murphy Saenz said: "Absolutely NOT!!!!!!"
Tired of the BS said: "Trying to chip away at our rights has become commonplace in our government. This is a perfect example of how the government tries to do it. Thanks to the aldermen that remembered what is written in our Constitution. Now, the next step should be to get rid of "roadside safety checkpoints" and the TSA."
Phxdr said: "I think Toland, Ensing and Simon were right in their concerns about this. The line between what is constitutional with local, state and federal authorities doing their jobs is becomming more and more blurred and it has to stop. There are a number of instances from the president being allowed to hold American citizens indefinitely with NDAA at the federal level (shot down by the judicial branch) to historic overlays put on private properties at the local level without the owner's consent.
The simple point with my examples and the above oak forest article is a loss of our freedom, liberty and law enforcement-government(s) who do not respect the people."
Donna Veronesi Evans said: "If the safety of a defenseless animal is at stake—absolutely."
Be sure to add your Comments in the comment section below to have your voice heard on this issue.
Roger
4:13 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
"Suspected violation"???? You kidding? That gives them carte blanche.
Bob Laird
4:15 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Definitly treading on dangerous ground. Our legal system set up laws long ago about just that. If someone is suspected of commiting a crime, a warrent is issued by a judge and the police then have the authority to march right in. As it should be. This would be setting a very dangerous precident.
Tired of the B.S.
4:42 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
To all the Patch readers who said that things like this would never come to pass when we were discussing the "roadside checkpoints", I guess that I, unfortunately, get to have the last laugh.
Every time that you let your rights be taken, whether at a DUI checkpoint or by the TSA at an airport, you just open the door for things just like this.
Bob Laird, you were one of those that had no problem with stopping at a DUI checkpoint ,a direct violation of your rights, even the Supreme Court justice that allowed it to happen said this, but now we are treading on dangerous ground?
I say we have been treading on dangerous ground for quite a while and unless we stop this trend of rights being taken away, America as we know it will be lost, forever.
Mike F.
6:34 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
DUI checkpoints are based upon implied consent laws. Implied consent means that if you are driving on a public roadway, you are giving law enforcement officials the okay to pull you over. Don't like it? Don't drive.
Bob Laird
8:40 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
B.S., a drunk behind the wheel is an immediate threat to innocent people. I won't post links about all the familys that lost loved ones like others do, but a legal warrant issued for a criminal is way different. Sounds like you had a bad experience with the authorities. (yes, I do drink myself, but I won't get behind the wheel when I do)
Tired of the B.S.
11:26 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Mike F,
You are wrong about implied consent. Implied consent means that you must submit to a chemical test AFTER you have been arrested for a DUI. It has nothing to do with DUI checkpoints. Here is your link: http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/illinois.htm
Tired of the B.S.
11:27 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Bob Laird,
No issues with the authorities here, unless you count my issues with my rights being taken away.
If DUI checkpoints were the answer, maybe I would change my mind, however, studies have shown that roving patrols or saturation patrols are much more effective and much cheaper than checkpoints.
In 2008, more than a million vehicles went through 1,469 California checkpoints. Police arrested just one-third of one percent of those motorists for drunk driving. Other states, including Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, have had similar results.
In contrast, records from State Supreme Court cases in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire show that roving patrols catch up to ten times more drunk drivers than checkpoints.
Roving patrols are cheaper, typically running about $300 (a checkpoint can cost over $10,000). Moreover, roving patrols can catch speeders, distracted and aggressive drivers, in addition to drunks.
Also because they are highly visible by design and publicized in advance, roadblocks are easily avoided by the chronic alcohol abusers who comprise the core of today's drunk driving problem.
Checkpoints are really just another way for governments to take your money. Impounds at checkpoints in California in 2009 generated an estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines. Also the officers working the DUI checkpoints received about $30 million in overtime pay.
Carly Mahoney
5:35 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
This is very scary they could enter your property just if a nosy neighbor complained about you, imagine coming home and having your beloved pet GONE or KILLED! A nightmare!!
Darnell
9:28 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
As I posted on the original article:
The entire 4th amendment it pretty cut and dry people.
This means back yards also!! HELLLLOOOO!!!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Amendment IV
Search and arrest
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.
Baba Wawa
7:40 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
And the 4th Amendment covers your car, your person wherever you are in the 50 states and territories; your purse, briefcase, bags, fanny pack, luggage when you're at the airport, bus station, on a train or walking down the street.
Darnell
8:56 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
@ Baba, I agree and we all see how those have been chipped away at. Sorry, I draw the line on my home and property!
Richard Simon
11:22 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
As I stated at te meeting I would support entry only if there was emminent(need spell check) and immediate danger to a person. Otherwise go get a warrant
Darnell
9:05 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Which I agree with in theory however, that will just become an excuse as the one officers use when they enter a home illegally " I observed what I thought to be an illegal activity taking place" and the courts dismiss it! It has happened and continues to happen. The courts need to start reprimanding rather than dismiss, which just gives police a green light to continue using it as an excuse for entry!
James Czyznikiewicz
6:11 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
What's wrong with knocking on my front door BEFORE entering my backyard?