{"id":4405,"date":"2010-07-07T18:01:33","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T17:24:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-07T17:24:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4405","title":{"rendered":"Oakland building code enforcers bring the cops to conduct a general search"},"content":{"rendered":"

I found this insidious practice in Oakland today from New American, Oakland Officials Get SMART to Circumvent the Constitution<\/a> from East Bay Express’s Oakland Police Search Without Warrants<\/a> by Alex Weber, summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

In a little-known city program that critics say may be unconstitutional, cops join fire and building inspectors as they enter homes without a warrant and then arrest residents if they find anything illegal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The first two paragraphs:<\/p>\n

On a gloomy recent morning in West Oakland, tenants at the David Gray Building \u2014 or, Off-Ramp Studios, as everyone who lives there calls it \u2014 stood in the hallways outside their lofts. They gathered around their doors in nervous clusters and spoke in hushed tones, wondering aloud whether they should head to work or stay and observe while two Oakland police officers, two building services code enforcers, a fire inspector, and three property management representatives entered all of their units one by one.<\/p>\n

Traditionally the entire procedure would have required a search warrant. But on this day, the group of cops and city officials were operating under a little-known Oakland city program, called “SMART” \u2014 Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team \u2014 that some legal experts say may be unconstitutional. That’s because they enter people’s homes without consent or a warrant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This isn’t even close to constitutional nor in good faith. King George’s messengers* would be proud of what they wrought.<\/p>\n

__________<\/p>\n

* So referred to in Entick v. Carrington<\/a>, 19 Howell\u2019s St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765), and Leach v. Three of the King’s Messengers<\/a>, 19 Howell’s St. Tr. 1001, 97 Eng. Rep. 1074 (K.B. 1765) (sometimes called Leach v. Money but not by SCOTUS, see United States v. United States District Court (Keith)<\/a>, 407 U.S. 297, 316 (1972)).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4405","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}