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:
“Shall not be infringed”, “They require”? Nope!,(
There is actually an amendment in the United States Constitution that prevents illegal search and seizure. It seems that they find other rights that aren’t in there, but this one is spelled out.
This happened to me – nobody can do a thing about it and it’s only going to get worse
no
Unless a serious health or public safety threat then this was an illegal search violating US Constitution.
Where’s the problem? They said no. So did a judge. Appeals will too
I love both of your guys sarcasm.
Not true.
Rodney Jones oh really? Tell that to the people whose families died in Waco. Tell that to the people who lost family members at Ruby Ridge. You have your head planted firmly up your$#%&!@*
The story said neither tenant nor landlord concented, and that either may request an inspection at any time.
Seems more like the rental permitting buerocracy run amuck.