DavidForthoffer (July 6th, 2008 @ 6:18 pm)

480 U.S. 301: 'We do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "correct" answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions. Rather, these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration -- whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's "umbrella" of Fourth Amendment protection.'

DavidForthoffer (July 6th, 2008 @ 6:11 pm)

zhuliu, It is good to see you reading and trying to understand the law. Unfortunately, you continue your tactic of twisting statements to your own purposes. Indiana Code 16-41-5-1 does not "advise" a warrant. It just says it is one of two choices, without "advising" either. Considering the Fourth Amendment, I think warrant would be required for a disease carrier within a home or its curtilage, while "emergency circumstances" could only be applied in open fields outside curtilage.

zhuliu (July 6th, 2008 @ 8:57 am)

DavidForthoffer, Very good, you know how to copy-and-paste; so why don't you quote 480 U S 294? Until then, the 4th Amendment is not nullified by any local codes; which are notorious for being unconstitutional and written badly. For example: Your IC forgets to mention a "warrant"; yet IC 16-41-5-1 which is about a much more urgent situation (communicable disease carriers) DOES mention "warrant". If a warrant is advised for a more urgent case, why not for a less urgent one?

DavidForthoffer (July 5th, 2008 @ 4:39 pm)

I have no doubt that most intelligent people who read United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987) will come to a different conclusion than zhuliu. I'm sorry I mis-cited the Indiana Code. Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 says, "the local health officer or the officer's designee may enter upon and inspect private property, at proper times after due notice, in regard to the possible presence, source, and cause of disease".

zhuliu (July 5th, 2008 @ 1:09 pm)

DavidForthoffer, 480 U. S. 294 provides no basis, and rewording your previous argument does nothing to make it valid. Its 4 factors used to determine curtilage do not all need to be met. IC 16-20-1-24 says nothing about "due notice"; but even if it did, it would not trump the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant (unless "warrant" is a part of the definition of "due notice").

DavidForthoffer (July 5th, 2008 @ 6:28 am)

The Fourth Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects", leaving open fields unprotected. The issue here is where open fields stop and the area starts that is intimately associated with the activities of a home (called 'curtilage'). United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987) discusses the factors used to determine curtilage. The 4th Amendment did not prohibit her there, and Indiana Code 16-20-1-24 allowed her there "after due notice", which she apparently gave the day before.

copusuck (July 5th, 2008 @ 1:31 am)

The board of health and the sheriffs office were in obvious violation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. All you who do not understand this are quite ignorant. Government does not have the unrestricted power you think it has.

zhuliu (July 1st, 2008 @ 10:07 pm)

DF, I thought a witless idiom only begged it. If you think I misunderstand Dunn, why don't you provide proof? Without it, your claim is hollow. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I can't prove that the evidence was obtained legally, so when I insist that it was, you'll just have to trust me -- and find the defendant GUILTY!!" Funny you should imply that I am going for the last word, when your replies have been just as persistent, and I've been virtually begging you to reply with a quote.

EvilMongrelMonkey (July 1st, 2008 @ 8:08 pm)

He should have shot her.

DavidForthoffer (July 1st, 2008 @ 2:37 pm)

A witty comeback! Too bad your horses cannot tell the difference between water and horseshit. Maybe you have been feeding them too much of the latter. Obviously, I cannot make you understand United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987), and you cannot make me misunderstand it. You are welcome to have the last word. Maybe someone who does not want to read Dunn will think that whomever speaks last must be telling the truth!

zhuliu (July 1st, 2008 @ 1:15 pm)

DF, What water? All you offer these horses is horseshit.

DavidForthoffer (July 1st, 2008 @ 10:00 am)

I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.