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.
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.
How about: Camara v. Municipal Court (1967),
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.
if someone is out in a public area there is no expectation of privacy - photo's are allowed.
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
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
Quote from: cindi on November 07, 2009, 09:40:00 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Springfielder on November 07, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
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.
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
I hadn't thought of stalking laws.
The only problem with that, is it's pretty hard to prove...but it certainly could be an option
Clearly SPAR is only seeking to track any disinformation so they can respond appropriately.
Just like when the White House sought to have "fishy" emails forwarded. No need to call the ACLU.
*These aren't the civil liberties violaters you are looking for... These civil liberites violaters are free to move on*
Quote from: Springfielder on November 07, 2009, 10:03:08 AM
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
I still believe it may be improper to photograph a private person and publish the photos to third parties without their consent, in connection with an implication that a law is being broken. As to case law on publishing an private individual's information or likeness;
Article I Section 23 of the Florida Constitution,
Rivers v. Dillards Dept. Store, Inc., 698 So.2d 1328 (Fla.App. 1 Dist., 1997)
Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Assoc. Indus. Of Florida, Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 (Fla. 1996)
Cason v. Baskin, 155 Fla. 198, 20 So.2d 243 (Fla. 1945)
and multiple others concerning publishing the private information and/or likeness of a private individual without permission.
But in this case, the "evidence gatherers" aren't acting on their own behalf, or for any commercial purpose. Rather, they're acting in order to gather probable cause for COJ's property enforcement operations, and because this is the scope of their actions, they're going to be held to the same standard as COJ would be under the same circumstances.
And to answer that question;
State v. Parker, 399 So.2d 24 (Fla.App., 1981)
State v. Butler, 1 So.3d 242 (Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2008)
QuoteState action is present, for Fourth Amendment purposes, when (1) a private party acts as an instrument or agent of the state in effecting a search and seizure, and the government knows of and acquiesces to the conduct, and (2) the search is conducted solely in pursuit of a governmental interest, rather than the private actor's self-interest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4
So where does that leave us? The self-described "probable cause gatherers" will probably be held to the same standard as the governmental entity making use of the information. So then you have to ask yourself whether anything they find can be used to support a finding that a property is a rooming house. That depends on the extent to which someone's privacy rights are invaded. This will be a case-by-case basis, and if the photographs are violative then they can't be used.
However, there appears to be only one case that is directly on point in Florida for the situation we're discussing, namely photos being taken by neighbors and then turned into code enforcement and the owners later alleging this violated their privacy rights;
Town of Sewall's Point v. Rhodes, 852 So.2d 949 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 2003)
This case involved neighbors taking photographs of private property and turning them into the City for enforcement purposes, and then the landowners later alleging this violated their right to privacy. The case didn't go well for the owners. Even when the photographs were labeled by the neighbors "The Hillbilly Hellhole", the court still found this was not defamatory and did not violate any of the landowner's privacy rights. So that does seem absolutely dispositive that the property owners' rights aren't violated by this type of photography.
But the rights of other people on that property may be another story. There just isn't much law on this exact point, except for the above case, which admittedly seems to find no problem with it, although again I'm stumped because that only related to the owner's rights and not to random people in the photograph.
Honestly, after researching it, I've got no clue. At first, I'm inclined to say
Dillards would dictate you can't photograph people without consent and wrongfully publish the photographs implying they're breaking a law, but then the purpose of these photographs isn't to imply that the people being photographed (the rooming house residents) are breaking any law. Their purpose is to imply that the landowner is breaking a law, and the landowner doesn't appear to be protected, according to the appeals court's review of
Sewall's Point. But again, that was property not people. So honestly, who knows?
One more thing.
While the photography aspect, involving photographing private people on private property without their knowledge or consent, is murky on whether the photos are admissible for LE purposes or whether any liability attaches to the photographer, SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.
Taking pictures of people on their porches only proves that people are on the porches. It doesn't prove that someone "lives" there.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 07, 2009, 01:08:31 PM
SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.
How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.
Quote(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.
And 934.02 ?
Quote(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
Quote from: AlexS on November 07, 2009, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 07, 2009, 01:08:31 PM
SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.
How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.
Quote(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.
And 934.02 ?
Quote(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
i think i is illegal if they do not know they are being recorded. if you tell them ahead of time it is different - maybe? i don't know.
You should all be at the airshow. A bit of sun and fun could do some good!
it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.
Quote from: AlexS on November 07, 2009, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 07, 2009, 01:08:31 PM
SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.
How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.
Quote(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.
And 934.02 ?
Quote(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
The bottom line in Florida boils down to each party having to consent, and not just one party. So you're right, that if you were recording a conversation, then obviously yes, you have consented to the recording and you are a party to it. But under Florida law that would still be illegal, unless you had informed the other party to the conversation and they had consented to the recording.
Florida law requires the consent of all parties to a recording, not just one.
Quote from: cindi on November 07, 2009, 01:53:43 PM
it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.
Now that depends entirely on what you're hoping to see.
Quote from: buckethead on November 07, 2009, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: cindi on November 07, 2009, 01:53:43 PM
it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.
Now that depends entirely on what you're hoping to see.
true that.
That's correct, both parties must consent to being recorded in order for it to be legal
Quote from: cindi on November 07, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: AlexS on November 07, 2009, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 07, 2009, 01:08:31 PM
SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.
How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.
Quote(4) To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.
And 934.02 ?
Quote(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
i think i is illegal if they do not know they are being recorded.
Cindi is correct.
If a party being recorded doesn't know they're being recorded and hasn't consented to being recorded, then it is illegal. For it to be legal, they would have to know you are recording them and consent to it.
If someone is running an illegal boarding house. and they are not paying taxes on the income that is produced by that house there is violation of tax laws. Local law enforcement might not be able to help but the IRS could.
aren't taxes what has snagged up some of the biggest crime bosses?
Yeah, just as a random point of legal trivia, that's how they finally got Al Capone (who needs no introduction), and Matthew Ianello (part of the crew that whacked Jimmy Hoffa), along with a bunch of other mob guys. The feds tried nabbing Capone for 1,000 different things, but none of it ever stuck. What finally sent him up river was plain-jane income tax evasion. After all the stuff these mob guys do, who'd have though that'd be what they'd get them for? LOL
Or that we'd be comparing boarding home owners to them?
well, face it, the "long arm of the law" only reaches so far - IRS, heck, they are all knowing.
Anyone know why my "I Like To Eat Food" post was deleted?
'Cause I do. Still like to eat food that is.
Man...and I thought we could all find some common ground there.
:'(
Mighta been the "F" bomb.
I believe there were also some statutes that came out of the whole Linda Tripp/Monica Lewinski scandal. I cant remember if they were state of Maryland, or federal wiretap laws.
Quote from: buckethead on November 07, 2009, 06:31:53 PM
Mighta been the "F" bomb.
naw....stephen throws the "f" bomb hither and yon. he and zoo got into it on another thread, remember?
Maybe someone really hates eating food?
Quote from: buckethead on November 07, 2009, 05:32:39 PM
Or that we'd be comparing boarding home owners to them?
Oh I wasn't comparing one to the other, and especially not J & G, they are state-licensed and make no effort to hide their business, I doubt there'd ever be any tax issues there. My interest is purely from a legal trivia standpoint. I think it's hilarious with these mob bosses who've killed people, looted state treasuries, etc., that the thing that finally brings them down is income tax evasion. Like death by a hangnail, compared to what they've done.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on November 07, 2009, 06:56:55 PM
Quote from: buckethead on November 07, 2009, 06:31:53 PM
Mighta been the "F" bomb.
naw....stephen throws the "f" bomb hither and yon. he and zoo got into it on another thread, remember?
Maybe someone really hates eating food?
This is getting out of control.
STOP THE FOOD HATING!
I suppose they want to keep the nonsensical threads to a minimum? Sadly, the only ones I feel at home in.
Quote from: FinnegansWake on November 07, 2009, 06:25:38 PM
Anyone know why my "I Like To Eat Food" post was deleted?
'Cause I do. Still like to eat food that is.
Man...and I thought we could all find some common ground there.
:'(
wow, just noticed that. maybe the weak couldn't take the asparagus knowledge. hey, i heard the neighbors like BBQ should we fill out an affidavit?
I was going to let this go, but...
QuoteChris 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
No, but I will correct the reason these walks were done. They were not to get the dirt on the neighbors as you have twisted this around to be. They were to make the community safer and better by making a positive presence known on the streets. They were also known as police walks as the police, often the bike patrol accompanied us. On these walks we talked about positive things and yes, occassionally noted something that was against the overlay or historic code and of course, illegal things as the police were with us, but the real purpose was not that information gathering. And another thing, when we found an abandoned house open, we checked it out and made sure it got re-secured to protect it rather than had it put into the "system" so that it would eventually be torn down. These walks were pretty well attended and were a positive thing to do in a time when the streets were much "wilder" than they are today. Shame on you Chris for trying to justify what SPAR Council wants to do today by twisting around a positive thing HSCC did.
implying that SPAR Council came up with tape reocrding anything is a flat out lie. someone in the audience brought it up, and it was met with laughter.
sorry to burst your bubble.
as i stated in another thread, i'm taking a vacation from this general topic for a long while. discussion with the same handful of people over and over again on this same issue isn't fruitful.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 08, 2009, 12:10:25 PM
implying that SPAR Council came up with tape reocrding anything is a flat out lie. someone in the audience brought it up, and it was met with laughter.
sorry to burst your bubble.
as i stated in another thread, i'm taking a vacation from this general topic for a long while. discussion with the same handful of people over and over again on this same issue isn't fruitful.
It was also met with applause from a few as well….. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Michael Trautman was serious and so, many, including SPAR Council's Executive board, did indeed agree with him at least in practice. Anyone who really believes that there will not be cell phone video and affidavits if they believe it will further their “cause†is sadly mistaken. Of course, I am sure at least two “supposed†illegal rooming houses will be exempt…they seem to rent to your clients…..
Quotestrider
I was going to let this go, but...
Quote
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
No, but I will correct the reason these walks were done. They were not to get the dirt on the neighbors as you have twisted this around to be. They were to make the community safer and better by making a positive presence known on the streets. They were also known as police walks as the police, often the bike patrol accompanied us. On these walks we talked about positive things and yes, occassionally noted something that was against the overlay or historic code and of course, illegal things as the police were with us, but the real purpose was not that information gathering. And another thing, when we found an abandoned house open, we checked it out and made sure it got re-secured to protect it rather than had it put into the "system" so that it would eventually be torn down. These walks were pretty well attended and were a positive thing to do in a time when the streets were much "wilder" than they are today. Shame on you Chris for trying to justify what SPAR Council wants to do today by twisting around a positive thing HSCC did.
Tomayto, tomahto.
QuoteMichael Trautman was serious and so, many, including SPAR Council's Executive board, did indeed agree with him
Porchcats can't see into anyone else's head (agreed), but somehow Strider can...
Quote from: zoo on November 08, 2009, 02:31:58 PM
Quotestrider
I was going to let this go, but...
Quote
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
No, but I will correct the reason these walks were done. They were not to get the dirt on the neighbors as you have twisted this around to be. They were to make the community safer and better by making a positive presence known on the streets. They were also known as police walks as the police, often the bike patrol accompanied us. On these walks we talked about positive things and yes, occasionally noted something that was against the overlay or historic code and of course, illegal things as the police were with us, but the real purpose was not that information gathering. And another thing, when we found an abandoned house open, we checked it out and made sure it got re-secured to protect it rather than had it put into the "system" so that it would eventually be torn down. These walks were pretty well attended and were a positive thing to do in a time when the streets were much "wilder" than they are today. Shame on you Chris for trying to justify what SPAR Council wants to do today by twisting around a positive thing HSCC did.
Tomayto, tomahto.
QuoteMichael Trautman was serious and so, many, including SPAR Council's Executive board, did indeed agree with him
Porchcats can't see into anyone else's head (agreed), but somehow Strider can...
Let’s see: information gathered against neighbors regarding what HSCC regarded as violations and by making a positive presence known on the streets are the same thing in your eyes? Interesting…..
And no, if you quote the entire sentence:
QuoteIt was also met with applause from a few as well….. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Michael Trautman was serious and so, many, including SPAR Council's Executive board, did indeed agree with him at least in practice.
You will see that I didn’t have to read their minds at all…..and as to Michael Trautman…it sure seems a few took his comments seriously and if you know him, it is certainly something he would do….or at least have someone else do…