Oathkeeper Sheriff Blocks Feds From Raiding Local Farmer

[OutHouse]

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.

fail.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law ..."

 

[sandorski]

fail.

That does not contradict my points.

 

[realibrad]

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?

The pervasively regulated industry exception simply means the FDA does not need a warrant. It does not exempt them for unreasonable searches. If the FDA is doing excessive searches, that would be unreasonable and would be illegal as explicitly stated in the constitution. Your argument is that because the FDA is allowed to do warrantless that they are allowed to do as many as they like as frequently as they like that is incorrect.

Arizona v. US was about the state trying to take action that was explicitly stated as only being done by the federal government. For that to apply here, the federal government would need to show that the state was enforcing a law that they were not allowed to enforce. Searches is not something that only the federal government does, and thus would be silly to bring up as it is not relevant in the context of this issue.

In Arizona v. US, the argument was that because the federal government was not enforcing immigration laws to the extent the states felt they should, that the states were going to enforce the immigration laws. States cannot take action for things that only the federal government has explicit control over. Again, for this to be relevant in any way, the sheriff would have to be enforcing something that that federal government has control over, and that is not the case. What the sheriff is doing from your perspective would be impeding lawful activity which has nothing to do with the case you are bringing up.

 

[realibrad]

That does not contradict my points.

Here is a logical problem with your stance. If a sheriff walks into a building and sees people printing money, what can he do? Does he have to just call the feds and wait until they arrive, or can he take action to detain people?

How about human trafficking? Should a street cop only notify federal agents and nothing more?

 

[fskimospy]

The pervasively regulated industry exception simply means the FDA does not need a warrant. It does not exempt them for unreasonable searches. If the FDA is doing excessive searches, that would be unreasonable and would be illegal as explicitly stated in the constitution. Your argument is that because the FDA is allowed to do warrantless that they are allowed to do as many as they like as frequently as they like that is incorrect.

That constraint is present within the statute that authorizes the inspections, I am aware of no 4th amendment jurisprudence that would cover this at all. Again as I have said repeatedly, the 4th amendment isn't applicable here. You would address this on statutory grounds, not 4th amendment grounds.

Regardless, the whole topic originally came up when the clueless sheriff started babbling about laws he didn't understand.

Arizona v. US was about the state trying to take action that was explicitly stated as only being done by the federal government. For that to apply here, the federal government would need to show that the state was enforcing a law that they were not allowed to enforce. Searches is not something that only the federal government does, and thus would be silly to bring up as it is not relevant in the context of this issue.

In Arizona v. US, the argument was that because the federal government was not enforcing immigration laws to the extent the states felt they should, that the states were going to enforce the immigration laws. States cannot take action for things that only the federal government has explicit control over. Again, for this to be relevant in any way, the sheriff would have to be enforcing something that that federal government has control over, and that is not the case. What the sheriff is doing from your perspective would be impeding lawful activity which has nothing to do with the case you are bringing up.

You are the one that asked about states enforcing federal law and I answered it. They can only do it if the Feds say it's ok. I don't see how the rest of what you wrote applies to what I said?

 

[fskimospy]

Also why is something unreasonable just because it is repeated? That makes no sense at all.

 

[sandorski]

Here is a logical problem with your stance. If a sheriff walks into a building and sees people printing money, what can he do? Does he have to just call the feds and wait until they arrive, or can he take action to detain people?

How about human trafficking? Should a street cop only notify federal agents and nothing more?

That's a whole lot different then seeing a Federal Agency within your County then concluding they are violating the Constitution.

Coming across a Crime in progress of course requires some kind of immediate action. On the flip side though, local Cops are not usually looking for Human Traffickers or Counterfeiters. If they have those types of Crimes in their geographic area, they usually do notify other Law enforcement agencies to deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is a logical problem with your stance. If a sheriff walks into a building and sees people printing money, what can he do? Does he have to just call the feds and wait until they arrive, or can he take action to detain people?

How about human trafficking? Should a street cop only notify federal agents and nothing more?

The federal government has either explicitly endorsed local action or has not prohibited it in these cases. They are acting with federal approval.

If someday the Feds decided to revoke that approval then local law enforcement could get in a lot of trouble if they decided to enforce federal law anyway.

 

[realibrad]

That constraint is present within the statute that authorizes the inspections, I am aware of no 4th amendment jurisprudence that would cover this at all. Again as I have said repeatedly, the 4th amendment isn't applicable here. You would address this on statutory grounds, not 4th amendment grounds.

Regardless, the whole topic originally came up when the clueless sheriff started babbling about laws he didn't understand.



You are the one that asked about states enforcing federal law and I answered it. They can only do it if the Feds say it's ok. I don't see how the rest of what you wrote applies to what I said?

The 4th amendment covers unreasonable searches. Unreasonable can also be the frequency. The FDA has every legal right to inspect a farm. It only has a problem when those inspections become excessive. When the norm is once a year, and for this one farm its being done twice a month, that sure looks to be excessive. Unless they were getting information every 2 weeks that something was happening, its would fall under being unreasonable.

I have found no FDA document that talks about how frequently they are allowed to inspect, only that they say reasonable.

As for states enforcing federal laws, you should say it differently. The federal government does not need to say its okay. There is a big difference between the federal government saying its okay, vs saying what is not okay. What got AZ into trouble is that the federal government explicitly said that only they could enforce immigration. Had the federal government said nothing, then AZ would be in the clear. That is different.

 

[realibrad]

Also why is something unreasonable just because it is repeated? That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does, and you are just not thinking very hard about how it could be so. Calling someone and saying hello is legal. Calling someone 200 times a day to say hello is harassment. I would think that was easy enough to get to.

 

[realibrad]

That's a whole lot different then seeing a Federal Agency within your County then concluding they are violating the Constitution.

Coming across a Crime in progress of course requires some kind of immediate action. On the flip side though, local Cops are not usually looking for Human Traffickers or Counterfeiters. If they have those types of Crimes in their geographic area, they usually do notify other Law enforcement agencies to deal with it.

If a sheriff thinks that there is a federal crime being committed, he can act or no? If the sheriff knows the situation and sees a search he deems to be unlawful by a police officer, can he step in? Can he step in if its being done by a federal agent?

 

[realibrad]

The federal government has either explicitly endorsed local action or has not prohibited it in these cases. They are acting with federal approval.

If someday the Feds decided to revoke that approval then local law enforcement could get in a lot of trouble if they decided to enforce federal law anyway.

Yes, but state and local officials can enforce federal law unless the federal government has explicitly said otherwise. That was not done here, so his point is invalid.

 

[sandorski]

If a sheriff thinks that there is a federal crime being committed, he can act or no? If the sheriff knows the situation and sees a search he deems to be unlawful by a police officer, can he step in? Can he step in if its being done by a federal agent?

You are going to equate the actions of an Agency to that of an individual Officer? This is an absurd argument.

 

[realibrad]

You are going to equate the actions of an Agency to that of an individual Officer? This is an absurd argument.

I am equating the FDA agent to the officer. How that was not clear I dont know. The FDA does nothing, the people working for the FDA do things. The police do nothing, officers do.

So, if a sheriff sees something that is against federal laws, can he act and do sheriff things?

 

[nickqt]

The 4th amendment covers unreasonable searches. Unreasonable can also be the frequency. The FDA has every legal right to inspect a farm. It only has a problem when those inspections become excessive. When the norm is once a year, and for this one farm its being done twice a month, that sure looks to be excessive. Unless they were getting information every 2 weeks that something was happening, its would fall under being unreasonable.

I have found no FDA document that talks about how frequently they are allowed to inspect, only that they say reasonable.

As for states enforcing federal laws, you should say it differently. The federal government does not need to say its okay. There is a big difference between the federal government saying its okay, vs saying what is not okay. What got AZ into trouble is that the federal government explicitly said that only they could enforce immigration. Had the federal government said nothing, then AZ would be in the clear. That is different.

There are problems here.

First, if the FDA has jurisdiction to inspect the facility, then it has jurisdiction.

A local county Sheriff doesn't get to decide what is or isn't "unreasonable", because the jurisdiction to inspect the facility is rooted in FDA regulations.

Now, if the Sheriff looked up the FDA regulations and found that the FDA is only allowed to inspect the facility once a month, then the Sheriff is acting as an advocate for his constituent. Fair enough. But just saying, "I think every two weeks is unreasonable under the 4th amendment" doesn't matter, because they're operating under FDA regulations regarding inspections.

And, we don't even know all of the background details. Has the farm been requested to show X, Y, and Z, and has continually refused? Has it been denying access to the farm, so that inspectors are forced to come out every two weeks, in order to perform their jobs? Who knows, based upon the source of the information that is clearly biased in favor of telling the Federal Government to kill itself and rot in hell.

You have a Sheriff opining that he thinks that it's "harassment", when his opinion means absolutely nothing regarding whether the inspections are OK under FDA regulations. And again, we're not really talking about 4th amendment privileges here, because a farm that is operating under any number of Federal laws and regulations isn't acting as a private entity that has 4th amendment privileges in regards to "searches", because it has availed itself to FDA regulations regarding inspections. In other words, the farm falls under FDA regulations regarding inspections, and the 4th amendment is no longer operable if the farm falls under FDA regulations regarding inspections, when it comes to the FDA doing inspections.

Now, the private farmer himself still has 4th amendment rights as a private individual, but his rights don't extend to the farm, and inspections of the farm under FDA regulations. As far as I know, the FDA wasn't trying to enter his private living quarters to search for private documents, but was trying to get onto a farm to inspect farm-related activities. Unless you can point out where the FDA is not allowed to do so, then the inspection seems to be lawful.

The Sheriff doesn't appear to be doing anything more than what Bundy-ites want, which is pretending that a county Sheriff is somehow as sovereign as the Federal government in regards to all issues of law.

The Sheriff is unable to legally arrest a Federal official performing Federal activities, just because the Sheriff don't like it. Again, this whole issue played out from 1861-1865, and the Sheriff's opinion on state v. federal sovereignty lost out...nevermind the fact that the articles of confederation had been tossed out 80 years before that.

 

[sandorski]

I am equating the FDA agent to the officer. How that was not clear I dont know. The FDA does nothing, the people working for the FDA do things. The police do nothing, officers do.

So, if a sheriff sees something that is against federal laws, can he act and do sheriff things?

Maybe. How does that apply to this situation though?

 

[1sikbITCH]

It is not up to the sheriff to decide if those inspections are warranted or fall within reasonable limits. He doesn't have the authority or the expertise to do so. If he actually tried to arrest a federal official he should be removed from office and potentially arrested himself.

Do you really want some random local dumbass deciding how the FDA should regulate business in his county? Doesn't that seem like a recipe for disaster?

Imagine if you got pulled over by the police once a week and subjected to drug sniffing dogs, vehicle impounded and ripped apart, cavity searches, house raided, just to have them snicker and say "haha cya Monday!".

It's called harassment. However it seems like a lawyer would be a more appropriate advocate than the Sheriff. But in the end the Sheriff stood up for his town and got results. Cops in my town will watch you burn if not kill you themselves; I am kind of jealous.

 

[realibrad]

There are problems here.

First, if the FDA has jurisdiction to inspect the facility, then it has jurisdiction.

A local county Sheriff doesn't get to decide what is or isn't "unreasonable", because the jurisdiction to inspect the facility is rooted in FDA regulations.

Now, if the Sheriff looked up the FDA regulations and found that the FDA is only allowed to inspect the facility once a month, then the Sheriff is acting as an advocate for his constituent. Fair enough. But just saying, "I think every two weeks is unreasonable under the 4th amendment" doesn't matter, because they're operating under FDA regulations regarding inspections.

And, we don't even know all of the background details. Has the farm been requested to show X, Y, and Z, and has continually refused? Has it been denying access to the farm, so that inspectors are forced to come out every two weeks, in order to perform their jobs? Who knows, based upon the source of the information that is clearly biased in favor of telling the Federal Government to kill itself and rot in hell.

You have a Sheriff opining that he thinks that it's "harassment", when his opinion means absolutely nothing regarding whether the inspections are OK under FDA regulations. And again, we're not really talking about 4th amendment privileges here, because a farm that is operating under any number of Federal laws and regulations isn't acting as a private entity that has 4th amendment privileges in regards to "searches", because it has availed itself to FDA regulations regarding inspections. In other words, the farm falls under FDA regulations regarding inspections, and the 4th amendment is no longer operable if the farm falls under FDA regulations regarding inspections, when it comes to the FDA doing inspections.

Now, the private farmer himself still has 4th amendment rights as a private individual, but his rights don't extend to the farm, and inspections of the farm under FDA regulations. As far as I know, the FDA wasn't trying to enter his private living quarters to search for private documents, but was trying to get onto a farm to inspect farm-related activities. Unless you can point out where the FDA is not allowed to do so, then the inspection seems to be lawful.

The Sheriff doesn't appear to be doing anything more than what Bundy-ites want, which is pretending that a county Sheriff is somehow as sovereign as the Federal government in regards to all issues of law.

The Sheriff is unable to legally arrest a Federal official performing Federal activities, just because the Sheriff don't like it. Again, this whole issue played out from 1861-1865, and the Sheriff's opinion on state v. federal sovereignty lost out...nevermind the fact that the articles of confederation had been tossed out 80 years before that.

Again and again.

The issue is not about the right to do the inspections. The issue is that the inspections were becoming harassment. When the typical place is inspected once a year, and this farm was 2 times a month with no legal action brought, its excessive.

Suppose that the 2 times a moth is true and it had been going on for a while, would that be excessive to you? If your answer is yes, then its a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

My argument is not that the FDA needed a warrant or that they did not have the right to do inspections. What I am saying is that if the claim is true about the amount and for how long, then it is excessive and is breaking the law.

I truly doubt that the sheriff thought he had much power. But, the media event it would cause would be far worse for the FDA than the sheriff. But, that does not matter. The point I am making is that the inspections were excessive and the sheriff called them out on he. He likely knew damn well that he could bluff them like that because the FDA did not know that the inspections were happening so frequently. Once he wrote a letter, they called the agent back because it was not worth it. If im not mistaken, the farmer was cleared of all things.

 

[nickqt]

Again and again.

The issue is not about the right to do the inspections. The issue is that the inspections were becoming harassment. When the typical place is inspected once a year, and this farm was 2 times a month with no legal action brought, its excessive.

Unless you can cite the FDA regulation that states that FDA inspectors are not allowed to inspect the facility every two weeks, then no, it is not "harassment". Until the US goes Full Somalia, businesses such as farms will be regulated by the government, and there are regulations that those businesses must go by. If you want to make an argument that the regulations are bad, go for it, but it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.

Suppose that the 2 times a moth is true and it had been going on for a while, would that be excessive to you? If your answer is yes, then its a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

No. The 4th Amendment has to do with individual privacy rights, and is irrelevant here. FDA regulations are relevant here.

Even if 2 times a month is not the standard, if there are other circumstance, such as this particular farmer not letting the FDA inspect the farm by refusing entry, or never being there when the inspector shows up, etc, then it isn't "harassment" just because the farmer doesn't want to let the FDA inspector in.

To put it another way, you need to be able to point to the FDA statute that shows the FDA inspector violating some regulation, not just make stuff up about how you personally believe that every two weeks amounts to "harassment" or is "unreasonable".

My argument is not that the FDA needed a warrant or that they did not have the right to do inspections. What I am saying is that if the claim is true about the amount and for how long, then it is excessive and is breaking the law.

Point out the law or regulation that the FDA inspector is violating, because it should be fairly obvious that just because you consider something "excessive" doesn't make it illegal.

I truly doubt that the sheriff thought he had much power. But, the media event it would cause would be far worse for the FDA than the sheriff. But, that does not matter. The point I am making is that the inspections were excessive and the sheriff called them out on he. He likely knew damn well that he could bluff them like that because the FDA did not know that the inspections were happening so frequently. Once he wrote a letter, they called the agent back because it was not worth it. If im not mistaken, the farmer was cleared of all things.

There's a good chance that after the last two Bundy ranch shitshows, the FDA said screw it, never mind. It doesn't mean that the FDA or FDA inspector did anything illegal, or violated any regulations.

The Sheriff can write letters or talk to dontcomply.com, but it doesn't mean that he has the power to prevent the Federal government from doing something it has the jurisdiction and legal power to do.

 

[michal1980]

He had no authority to write the letter. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of whatever pops into Sheriff Rogers' head. He abused his office; one man mob rule.

The farmer had legal recourse if the feds were overstepping the law. Sheriff Rogers' dick waving is not that recourse.

same nation of laws that allows millions of illegals into the country? same nation of laws where one party refuses to call 'illegals' illegals?

 

[nickqt]

same nation of laws that allows millions of illegals into the country? same nation of laws where one party refuses to call 'illegals' illegals?

If someone enters the country legally, overstaying isn't a criminal offense, hence "illegals" that you are referring to aren't necessarily illegal.

But, that don't fit on bumper stickers, so just continue believing whatever you want to believe, America hater.

 

[michal1980]

If someone enters the country legally, overstaying isn't a criminal offense, hence "illegals" that you are referring to aren't necessarily illegal.

But, that don't fit on bumper stickers, so just continue believing whatever you want to believe, America hater.

These bold words coming from someone defending ISIS.

1) the are illegal
2) there are also tens of thousands of illegals crossing our borders.

 

[nickqt]

These bold words coming from someone defending ISIS.

1) the are illegal
2) there are also tens of thousands of illegals crossing our borders.

There you go again, proving yourself to be the stupidest poster in all the land.

All while hating America, too.

Congrats, America hater.

 

[CitizenKain]

I'm surprised they found a oathkeeper loon who can read.

 

[michal1980]

There you go again, proving yourself to be the stupidest poster in all the land.

All while hating America, too.

Congrats, America hater.

everything in your post is 100% wrong. But that's true of all your posts nickISISqt.