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.