Gathering Information for Probable Cause Against Your Neighbor

[sheclown]

Code enforcement cannot enter a private property without a search warrant or permission.  In order to get a search warrant, the officers will need "probable cause."

At the meeting on Thursday night, we learned that SPARs current "rooming house plan" is to get information documented, gathered and collected for the city to use as probable cause against the property owners.

Do we have SPAR's list of 7 ways to gather this information yet? Just curious.  Some of the ways discussed were:  affidavits, photos of people on porches, tape recordings of casual conversations, asking people where they live and the living arrangements.

What do we know about the Fourth Amendment?  I was sleeping that day in Government class.

[strider]

Personally, I think the first thing that should be done is to find out if that entire concept is true or not.  Can the code enforcement officers get a "search" warrant at all whether they show probably cause or not? We all know that the police can if probably cause is shown regarding illegal activity, but this is zoning codes and rather minor ones at that...in other words, it is not setting up to make steel in the center of a residential area, but renting rooms out within a house you own.

Once that is determned and if it is possible, then the "probably cause" needed should be pretty well spelled out all ready.

[sheclown]

How about:   Camara v. Municipal Court (1967),

[ChriswUfGator]

Tape recording people without their knowledge and consent is wholly illegal in Florida. Taking photos of people for later publication to 3rd parties without their knowledge and consent is borderline. So there goes two of the suggestions right off the bat.

Of course, this is hardly the first time SPAR has shown a total disregard for the rules, e.g. abusing the CARE system with bogus complaints, encouraging a councilman to break sunshine laws, breaking its own bylaws by refusing to hold elections, bogus petitions, yada, yada, yada. So I guess it's really not that surprising.

[cindi]

if someone is out in a public area there is no expectation of privacy - photo's are allowed.

[Springfielder]

If the person is out in public view, taking photos is legal as there's little to no right to privacy. However, just because someone takes photos of people on a porch, etc does not constitute any confirmation that they reside there. Recording (ie: conversations) isn't permissible in court, not without their (the persons being recorded) consent.

I don't see where the police would become involved as far as probable cause to obtain a search warrant for code enforcement to enter the property. I don't believe a violation of a city ordinance would fall under a criminal act...which to my understanding are not the same at all. However, I'm uncertain if perhaps the fire marshal could enter with/without cause or permission.

Edit, I see Cindi also addressed the non violation of privacy

[chris farley]

When HSCC was in place every month there was a walk and information gathered against neighbors regarding what HSCC regarded as violations, I know because I got stuck with the record taking a couple of times - sometimes the police walked with us.  Also the police wish for photos of drug dealing  and PLEASE do not twist that into someone saying there is drug dealing in your rooming houses

[ChriswUfGator]

if someone is out in a public area there is no expectation of privacy - photo's are allowed.

When someone is on public property, e.g. a sidewalk, a commercial business open to the public, a public beach, a public street, a public park, a public restaurant, you name it, whatever, then you've got a point. But this isn't public, the person being photographed is on private property.

So this is a private person (not a public figure) sitting on or in their own property and being photographed by a 3rd party who intends to publish those photos without their knowledge or consent. That most certainly will be a problem, and the photographs should not be published (by published, the law means distributed to third parties) without their knowledge and consent.

[Springfielder]

It doesn't matter if they're on private property, sitting in their personal car, etc...if they're out in public view, there's no expectation of privacy

[ChriswUfGator]

It doesn't matter if they're on private property, sitting in their personal car, etc...if they're out in public view, there's no expectation of privacy

I believe you're a bit confused, in that the public view exception for gathering evidence that establishes probable cause only applies to law enforcement officers. It has nothing to do with whether I can sneak around taking pictures of you in your own property and then re-distribute them.

It seems you believe that, if you can see someone at any time, then you're allowed to photograph them regardless of the circumstances. That is simply not correct.

[stephendare]

Chris it seems like Florida's rather strict stalking laws might even come into play.

[Springfielder]

I'm not confused, and I'll state this again....if the person is outside, in public view, there is no expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal (not saying it's not tacky or otherwise) for someone to stand outside someones house and photograph the people outside.

State the case law that says you cannot be photographed while in public view

[sheclown]

I hadn't thought of stalking laws.

[Springfielder]

The only problem with that, is it's pretty hard to prove...but it certainly could be an option

[stephendare]

Well it would have been hard to proves except that there was a public meeting, an announcement and then a huge three day discussion about it.