A major decision that will impact Minnesotans’ privacy rights is waiting to be heard in the state’s court of Appeals.
It all started off simply enough. Jason and Jackie Wiebesick were a Golden Valley couple who lived in a duplex. One day, officials from the city approached them to ask permission to inspect their home. The stated reason was to collect information so as to make a decision over whether to renew the Wiebesick’s rental license.
Disturbed by the prospect of unfamiliar people walking around their home, the Wiebesick’s turned down the inspectors’ request. One might think it would have ended there, but the city saw to it that it didn’t.
Taking the case to court, Golden Valley authorities implored a county judge to issue a warrant overriding the Wiebesick’s objections and allowing them into the house. Tellingly, the judge refused their request for a warrant, prompting the city to reach even higher.
See video about the case on the next page:
Why is this even a question? We fought a war over 200 years ago about this against England, do they really want another one?? No Warrent, No “inspection” period. Cant get a warrent then stop! If everyone in this city doesn’t vote every single politian out of office over this they deserve whgat they get!
In this case the Government is their landlord. This is not the “Government” trying to spy on some general Citizen but the landlord wanting access to the house to assess it’s safety and upkeep.
It’s a duplex…. Hence they live in one half and rent the other half out…. Their issue is with letting them in their half or “their house”…
The Bill of Rights went out the window with the signing of the Patriot Act.
My question would be what are the legal conditions that they agreed to to get a rental license. If they are in violation, how does the city know without an inspection. Do they have smoke alarms up? Have they half assed a furnace repair that’s gonna kill the next renters with CO2. Do they have to let the inspectors in? No. But does the city have to renew a rental license for someone that refuses an inspection? No.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Uh Oh…told yah sooooooo
…and that’s why we need gun control. All that senseless killing. People need to get out of the way of progress so the government can come into your house and do whatever they want without fear of retaliation.
Once again people are not reading the facts. This is a rental property. Every city that licenses rental property requires you allow them to inspect it so they are sure you’re up to code. So they can refuse and the city could have much more cost effectively just revoked the rental license and then take them to court if they keep renting without a license. But please read the details before making this about illegal inspections and govt overreach.
Privacy rights need to be protected and officials that violate them fired.