Oathkeeper Sheriff Blocks Feds From Raiding Local Farmer

[Kwatt]

What was the "hold tag" supposed to be used for?

Why did he remove a "hold tag" on the cooler?

Different case. My response was in error.

.

 

[nickqt]

the 10th amendment disagrees with you.

and the supreme court case of Printz v. U.S

The 10th Amendment, the most toothless of all the Amendments, says that states have the ability to do things not delegated to the Federal government. It doesn't say that state officers have the ability to prevent the Federal government from doing something they believe to be wrong and stuff.

Printz states that the Federal government is not allowed to de facto use state officials as Federal officers, in enforcing Federal laws. The facts, never mind the holding, have nothing to do with the Federal government and FDA having jurisdiction over a case of interstate commerce.

The Federal government and/or FDA were not attempting to make Sheriff Hero-man McFreedom enforce Federal law or FDA regulations.

You clearly don't know much about the US Constitution or 230 years of US jurisprudence. Which is perfectly OK.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The original 'warning letter' from the FDA to the farmer in question (Note: this all started back in 2006)

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2006/ucm076271.htm

and a local news story from 2011 which gives a fair bit of detail on the case since 2010 when there was a bacteria outbreak that was suspected to have started on his farm:

http://www.goshennews.com/news/midd...cle_b07a8430-9897-5504-9820-d943d60149f6.html

 

[PokerGuy]

So the bottom line is, they were "inspecting" him as often as every two weeks. Sheriff writes a strongly worded letter, and the agency basically drops the matter and immediately drops the charges/indictment. Sounds like the right outcome. Whether or not the sheriff had the actual ability to do something about it or not doesn't matter: he didn't actually take action. With his letter he cast a light on what the agency was doing, forcing them to either justify their actions (which would be really easy to do if their actions were just), or to drop the matter. They dropped the matter, which speaks volumes about their actions prior to his letter.

 

[IronWing]

So the bottom line is, they were "inspecting" him as often as every two weeks. Sheriff writes a strongly worded letter, and the agency basically drops the matter and immediately drops the charges/indictment. Sounds like the right outcome. Whether or not the sheriff had the actual ability to do something about it or not doesn't matter: he didn't actually take action. With his letter he cast a light on what the agency was doing, forcing them to either justify their actions (which would be really easy to do if their actions were just), or to drop the matter. They dropped the matter, which speaks volumes about their actions prior to his letter.

If, for the sack of argument, we accept that this version is true then all the sheriff accomplished was to short circuit the justice system leaving the agency free to go pick on someone else. If the farmer had actually been harassed as alleged and had taken his case to court and prevailed then the agency could have been enjoined from harassing anyone in this manner.

 

[PokerGuy]

Are you saying that when the FDA came to inspect this farm they did not bring the proper identification? If so, what is your source? Are you saying that the FDA lacked the statutory authority to inspect this farm? If so, what's your source? I'm aware of no one even attempting to make such an argument, so this is an invalid comparison.

If federal officials came to your business with proper identification and began inspecting it and you called the local cops they would do nothing. If they did do something they could be putting themselves in legal jeopardy.

Nonsense. Following that logic, anyone from a federal agency -- provided they had proper identification -- could waltz into any business and start "inspecting" or doing whatever they want at any time without any limitations. That's a pretty terrifying setup you're advocating.

Had the sheriff actually interfered with inspections or arrested one of the agents etc, then he might have gotten in some hot water, but that didn't happen. His actions simply put a spotlight on something that the agency clearly didn't want a spotlight on, so they backed off.

I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to the fact that some sheriffs are undoubtedly idiots and this would grant them the same power. No thanks.

Huh? What power would "this" granted him? He wasn't granted any power. His action, writing a letter (which is 100% within his rights) led to what appears to be the right outcome. Sometimes it takes someone who could stir up trouble and cast a spotlight on something to force abuse of power to stop.

He wrote a letter showing he doesn't understand how the law works. Warrant? Huh? The FDA would be under no such burden and could go back there tomorrow.

Of course they could, but a potential conflict would put a spotlight on the actions of the FDA in that case, regardless of whether the sheriff is wrong or not. If what the farmer is claiming is true (and I have no idea if it is), then the FDA would not want that to happen. Hence, they drop the matter and move on.

There is no evidence that any abuse was taking place here, only the statements of one self interested party.

Hence my disclaimer that I don't know what the actual facts are, we just have claims.

That would depend entirely on why they were inspecting him and it is most certainly not prima fascie evidence of abuse. It sounds like he was engaged in illegal behavior, actually.

If he was engaged in illegal behavior (and continues to be), then they would not have simply dropped the matter and sent him a nice certified letter that the indictment was being dropped.... unless they wanted to avoid a spotlight on their actions in the case.

If everyone else gets 1 visit every couple of years and he gets 20+ in a year, there would have to be an extremely compelling reason to justify it for it not to be considered abusive. I'm guessing there wasn't an extremely compelling argument for applying that level of scrutiny to one farmer, so they dropped the matter instead.

 

[PokerGuy]

If, for the sack of argument, we accept that this version is true then all the sheriff accomplished was to short circuit the justice system leaving the agency free to go pick on someone else. If the farmer had actually been harassed as alleged and had taken his case to court and prevailed then the agency could have been enjoined from harassing anyone in this manner.

You're forgetting that the agency could abuse him and still be within it's legal rights. For example, the FDA is likely within it's authority to do "reasonable" inspections. What exactly is "reasonable"? If they inspect him 20+ times per year, is that "reasonable"? Can he afford to hire a lawyer and spend tens of thousands battling the FDA to stop what they are doing? It's not like if he won he'd hit the jackpot and end up a zillionaire, all he'd win would be for the actions to stop. All in all, if the claims are true, the sheriff's action brought about the best outcome in the swiftest possible way.

 

[glenn1]

You're forgetting that the agency could abuse him and still be within it's legal rights. For example, the FDA is likely within it's authority to do "reasonable" inspections. What exactly is "reasonable"? If they inspect him 20+ times per year, is that "reasonable"? Can he afford to hire a lawyer and spend tens of thousands battling the FDA to stop what they are doing? It's not like if he won he'd hit the jackpot and end up a zillionaire, all he'd win would be for the actions to stop. All in all, if the claims are true, the sheriff's action brought about the best outcome in the swiftest possible way.

I'm going to take a SWAG and presume this was simply an enforcement agent being a bit overzealous in trying to close out an old case file, perhaps on the direction of their boss so their reporting metrics would look better. The agent in question was probably relying on the old tactic of the farmer getting frustrated with the continued visits and so that he'd relent saying "just let him do the damn inspection and get it over with so I can get back to being a farmer instead of being pestered by this federal government functionary" but instead the farmer pushed back and then the sheriff jumped in. By that point the higher-ups in Washington realized the reputation risk of pursuing the matter further given the sheriff and farmer making a stink about it didn't justify the cost/benefit. What FDA political appointee wants to get a call from a U.S. Senator after the sheriff or farmer complain about it? And for what, so that MAYBE they get enough evidence in an inspection to perhaps support an indictment of this guy on charges of one case of food poisoning from the raw milk and proceed to a trial they might lose? Better to just let it go and if there's a recurrence of food illness tracked to this guy then go full court order and such on him, or shut him down outright for refusing inspections.

 

[MrPickins]

So the bottom line is, they were "inspecting" him as often as every two weeks.
...

First, the only person making the claim of 2 week inspections is the sheriff. Odds are very good that he's exaggerating.

Second, the dairy owner was refusing to allow inspectors in. It's hard to get any inspecting done when you have no access to the premises.

Third, if they were refused entry, I see no problem with them coming back every few weeks until they can get the inspection done.

 

[PokerGuy]

First, the only person making the claim of 2 week inspections is the sheriff. Odds are very good that he's exaggerating.

That is quite possible, but I've stated that caveat multiple times already. I don't know that the claims are in fact true, nor do I know the details of the case. I'm talking about the information as presented.

Would is surprise me if the number of inspections was severely exaggerated? Nope. Would it surprise me if the farmer and/or sheriff in this story were completely full of crap and the actual story is quite different? Nope. Would it surprise me if the FDA did in fact use abusive tactics like continued excessive "inspections"? Nope. None of those would be really shocking.

Second, the dairy owner was refusing to allow inspectors in. It's hard to get any inspecting done when you have no access to the premises.

Third, if they were refused entry, I see no problem with them coming back every few weeks until they can get the inspection done.

If he refuses them entry over and over, why keep returning? He's obviously going to continue to refuse them entry anyway. You would proceed to legal steps against the business (fine/shut down/whatever) based on him not letting the FDA do their inspections as required. Why keep going back over and over for years if it isn't doing any good?

Also, the way I read the story was that they actually did inspect the property many times, not that they tried and were unable to. I could be wrong though.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not even sure why this would ever be a 4th amendment issue. It sounds like inspections of a business. The FDA simply does not need probable cause or warrants to engage in these inspections for businesses under their regulatory authority.

They have a statutory obligation not to engage in onerous searches but I'm not aware of FDA inspections ever being successfully challenged on 4th amendment grounds.

Um, you cant see how it could be a 4th amendment issue?

"unreasonable searches".

The sheriff has legal authority to interpret and enforce laws. If the Sheriff feels that the searches are unreasonable, he has legal authority to stop them. The recourse is that the sheriff can be brought before a court and stopped. That said, the state did not create a law that conflicts with federal law, so the supremacy clause does not apply here.

Because the searches appeared to turn up nothing, yet continued at a rate that was far higher than normal, he made the decision that they were likely unreasonable. If the federal government grants itself power that conflicts with the constitution, a sheriff can pick which side he wants to be on. Its what happens when you have a complex legal system.

The sheriff of Indiana takes an oath to uphold the federal constitution, and as such has to interpret. He made the judgement that the searches were unreasonable and acted. Right or wrong, he has the power to act. Its up to the courts to decide if his judgement was wrong. The issue was not that searches were illegal inherently and or needing a warrant, but that they were so frequent for so long that made them unreasonable.

 

[sandorski]

Um, you cant see how it could be a 4th amendment issue?

"unreasonable searches".

The sheriff has legal authority to interpret and enforce laws. If the Sheriff feels that the searches are unreasonable, he has legal authority to stop them. The recourse is that the sheriff can be brought before a court and stopped. That said, the state did not create a law that conflicts with federal law, so the supremacy clause does not apply here.

Because the searches appeared to turn up nothing, yet continued at a rate that was far higher than normal, he made the decision that they were likely unreasonable. If the federal government grants itself power that conflicts with the constitution, a sheriff can pick which side he wants to be on. Its what happens when you have a complex legal system.

The sheriff of Indiana takes an oath to uphold the federal constitution, and as such has to interpret. He made the judgement that the searches were unreasonable and acted. Right or wrong, he has the power to act. Its up to the courts to decide if his judgement was wrong. The issue was not that searches were illegal inherently and or needing a warrant, but that they were so frequent for so long that made them unreasonable.

A Sheriff enforces the Constitution? I think that's a bit of a jurisdictional over reach.

 

[realibrad]

A Sheriff enforces the Constitution? I think that's a bit of a jurisdictional over reach.

No. Why would it be over reach to say that an elected official should enforce the ultimate law of the land? Are you saying that only federal officials should enforce federal laws?

 

[MongGrel]

First, the only person making the claim of 2 week inspections is the sheriff. Odds are very good that he's exaggerating.

Second, the dairy owner was refusing to allow inspectors in. It's hard to get any inspecting done when you have no access to the premises.

Third, if they were refused entry, I see no problem with them coming back every few weeks until they can get the inspection done.

Personally, I used to drink a lot of raw milk growing up myself. I'm not against it.

Repeatedly not allowing inspections to begin with seems odd.

For all we know, the guy could be chucking Cocaine into one container and transporting it.

Yeah, I know, that is extremely out there Breaking Bad scenario, but there is a reason they do inspections.

Refusing to allow them raises eyebrows.

 

[sandorski]

No. Why would it be over reach to say that an elected official should enforce the ultimate law of the land? Are you saying that only federal officials should enforce federal laws?

I'm saying that a Sheriff has his/her own Local Laws to enforce. The idea that the Constitution is what they are enforcing is ludicrous. May as well be enforcing the Magna Carta or Geneva Convention.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, you cant see how it could be a 4th amendment issue?

"unreasonable searches".

The sheriff has legal authority to interpret and enforce laws. If the Sheriff feels that the searches are unreasonable, he has legal authority to stop them. The recourse is that the sheriff can be brought before a court and stopped. That said, the state did not create a law that conflicts with federal law, so the supremacy clause does not apply here.

Because the searches appeared to turn up nothing, yet continued at a rate that was far higher than normal, he made the decision that they were likely unreasonable. If the federal government grants itself power that conflicts with the constitution, a sheriff can pick which side he wants to be on. Its what happens when you have a complex legal system.

The sheriff of Indiana takes an oath to uphold the federal constitution, and as such has to interpret. He made the judgement that the searches were unreasonable and acted. Right or wrong, he has the power to act. Its up to the courts to decide if his judgement was wrong. The issue was not that searches were illegal inherently and or needing a warrant, but that they were so frequent for so long that made them unreasonable.

FDA health and safety inspections are not subject to the 4th amendment as they are acting in a pervasively regulated industry. This has been upheld repeatedly by the courts.

So no, considering that the courts have repeatedly held that the 4th amendment does not apply here I can't see how this could be a 4th amendment issue.

The sheriff was out of line and impeding an FDA inspection is a criminal offense. If he actually acted in a way to prevent it he could and should be prosecuted.

 

[fskimospy]

No. Why would it be over reach to say that an elected official should enforce the ultimate law of the land? Are you saying that only federal officials should enforce federal laws?

The federal government has the power to decide if state and local law enforcement are permitted to enforce federal law. See Arizona v. United States.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm saying that a Sheriff has his/her own Local Laws to enforce. The idea that the Constitution is what they are enforcing is ludicrous. May as well be enforcing the Magna Carta or Geneva Convention.

Uh, are the magna carta and geneva convention the law of the US? No. The Constitution is the base law of the land, and the sheriff has taken an oath to uphold the law. Not just local law, the law.

 

[sandorski]

Uh, are the magna carta and geneva convention the law of the US? No. The Constitution is the base law of the land, and the sheriff has taken an oath to uphold the law. Not just local law, the law.

Your laws are based upon the Magna Carta at least. My point is that a Sheriff is not there to uphold the Constitution. He is there to uphold Local Law. Those Local Laws are, one presumes, Constitutional.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your laws are based upon the Magna Carta at least. My point is that a Sheriff is not there to uphold the Constitution. He is there to uphold Local Law. Those Local Laws are, one presumes, Constitutional.

Sorry, but that's just factually wrong. He is there to uphold the law. Not just local law. The magna carta might be a historical basis for a lot of law, but it is not the law of the US. The constitution is. He is absolutely within his role to uphold the constitution. Note that enforcement of some federal laws is limited to federal agents, but that doesn't mean the sheriff is not to uphold the constitution.

 

[sandorski]

Sorry, but that's just factually wrong. He is there to uphold the law. Not just local law. The magna carta might be a historical basis for a lot of law, but it is not the law of the US. The constitution is. He is absolutely within his role to uphold the constitution.

I find this argument rather silly. Mainly because Police forces simply don't use the Constitution as there reason for enforcing this or that Law. They have particular Laws they enforce, all of which(99% of the time) conform to the Constitution. They do not go out looking for Constitutional violations, but violations of the Laws in their jurisdiction.

 

[realibrad]

FDA health and safety inspections are not subject to the 4th amendment as they are acting in a pervasively regulated industry. This has been upheld repeatedly by the courts.

So no, considering that the courts have repeatedly held that the 4th amendment does not apply here I can't see how this could be a 4th amendment issue.

The sheriff was out of line and impeding an FDA inspection is a criminal offense. If he actually acted in a way to prevent it he could and should be prosecuted.

No. You are wrong.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/01/rethinking-closely-regulated-industries/

That exception permits warrantless administrative inspections of businesses operating in certain industries subject to intense regulation.

The pervasively regulated industry exception means that the federal agency does not need to have a warrant to do an inspection.

 

[realibrad]

The federal government has the power to decide if state and local law enforcement are permitted to enforce federal law. See Arizona v. United States.

No. The ruling was that Arizona usurped federal authority because only the feds had the sole ability to regulate immigration. Only the federal government can do something about immigration and any action by a state infringes on that explicit enforcement. If this case about the milk was about the feds saying only they had the right to do something, then it would make sense but that is not the issue. The feds were not enforcing something only they can do. Other groups can do searches and as I showed in my previous post, courts have ruled that federal agencies will sometimes need warrants even in highly regulated industries.

 

[fskimospy]

No. You are wrong.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/01/rethinking-closely-regulated-industries/



The pervasively regulated industry exception means that the federal agency does not need to have a warrant to do an inspection.

Exactly, so now we agree I assume? Nothing in your piece attempts to argue that FDA inspections are not exempt from warrant requirements, in fact if anything they are cited as an example of something that is exempt. Your piece supports my point.

 

[fskimospy]

No. The ruling was that Arizona usurped federal authority because only the feds had the sole ability to regulate immigration. Only the federal government can do something about immigration and any action by a state infringes on that explicit enforcement. If this case about the milk was about the feds saying only they had the right to do something, then it would make sense but that is not the issue. The feds were not enforcing something only they can do. Other groups can do searches and as I showed in my previous post, courts have ruled that federal agencies will sometimes need warrants even in highly regulated industries.

Of course other groups can do searches, but as Arizona v. US showed they cannot choose to enforce federal law if the federal government says they shouldn't. What's the confusion here?