CA9: After zoning violation found, necessity of inspection thereafter did not violate Fourth Amendment

Previous finding of a zoning violation requiring an inspection thereafter did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Jensen v. County of Sonoma, 444 Fed. Appx. 156 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)*:

Furthermore, given its finding that there was a zoning ordinance violation, the County’s order requiring the Jensens to schedule inspection to confirm abatement is reasonable and does not present a Fourth Amendment violation. See Sanchez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916, 923-924 (9th Cir. 2006); G.H. Love, Inc. v. Fleming, 161 F.2d 726, 728 (9th Cir. 1947).

The deputies actions here were not sufficient to rise to a show of authority. There were no guns drawn and the tone was conversational. Defendant’s authority is distinguishable because there the defendant was ordered to have his hands on his head with his fingers interlaced for control. State v. Lantzsch, 244 Ore. App. 330 (2011), on remand from State v. Lantzsch, 349 Ore. 663, 249 P.3d 1281 (2011).

Officers had plenty of probable cause that defendant was in possession of drugs. When he was being followed, he went to a hotel room. It was reasonable to infer the drugs would have been there. United States v. Jones, 431 Fed. Appx. 714 (10th Cir. July 25, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.