MIKE IOANE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of “blue laws” is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual’s current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

IN OUR OPINION NO OF MIKE IOANE’S RIGHTS HAVE BEEN HEARD.

MIKE IOANE AND COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS BLOG

There have been a lot of comments made unrelated to the subject matter of this blog.  We will no longer be posting unrelated comments.  The subject matter of this blog is Constitutional right violations, civil right violations, public corruption related to DOJ, IRS AND OR THE COURTS. 

For Corporate or Entity administration or set up contact Acacia Business Solutions at 775-841-1876.

For Legal Tudoring ask for Mike Ioane.

MIKE IOANE – Jay Adkisson: Out of control

A couple of years ago, I was witness to the psychotic behavior of one Jay
Adkisson.
A friend of mine, a website designer, had called Jay’s office and left a
message for Jay, asking why Jay chose to include a case, as yet tried, as an
example of tax “scams”.

No sooner than my friend had gotten off of the phone, Jay Adkisson himself
called back and launch into a tirade against my friend, yelling and
screaming and ranting about things unrelated to the question he had been
asked. Needless to say, my friend called the phone company and reported the
abusive phone call. A while later, Adkisson’ office called and his
“handlers” apologized for Jay’s actions and said he had been under a lot of
stress. There is a police report on file about this incident. In my mind,
Jay Adkisson is a control-freak and suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Further, he “asset protection” scam while pointing fingers at others who
don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes is a prime example of the hypocrisy
that abounds in the circle of lawyers and the federal government and other
such perverts.

Gary Anderson

–
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom
must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
- Thomas Paine

MIKE IOANE – QUATLOOS THRASHED FOR FRAUD BY DAVE CHAMPION

>
Check this out. I found this on another website – Quatloos should be reported to the State Bar. Let me know what you think.

The Quatloos Website is a FRAUD
> Dave Champion thrashes Jay D. Adkisson on American Radio Show, March 6, 2004
> Beware, tax honesty advocates! There is a lot of snake oil out there, and
> the most prominent source of anti-tax protester snake oil is the Quatloos
> website at http://www.quatloos.com . This website is run by a verbally
> abusive and arrogant lawyer named Jay Adkisson. Below is the picture of him
> submitted by one of our readers: That website has been around for at least the last three years and has been
> in existence ever since this website stood up. It has become famous for
> trashing absolutely EVERYONE who wants an accountable and law-abiding
> government so far as taxation is concerned. From now on, we will refer to
> Mr. Adkisson in this article as AssKisser (or Ass Kisser’s Son, in its long
> rendition), and the favorite Asses he kisses and brown noses are those of
> the Senate Finance Committee and the Illegal Robbery Squad (IRS). We use
> the derogatory term “AssKisser” only because we think Divine Justice ought
> to operate on him, where he reaps exactly what he sows. His whole website
> slanders people so he, and only he, definitely ought to get a BIG dose of
> his own medicine. We don’t, however, have to tell untruths in order to
> discredit him, because the truth about his misdeeds is more damaging than
> the kinds of deception and lies that he practices. If it’s truth, it isn’t
> slander, but simply “news”. He is among the few people who deserve this
> kind of negative attention. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble…..
> Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil [and the Quatloos
> Website] walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devoir.
> Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are
> experienced by your brotherhood in the world.” [1 Peter 5:5-9, Bible, NKJV]
> AssKisser has appeared at the Senate Finance Committee hearings several
> times over the past few years, held usually in April right around tax return
> time. These meetings have turned into a favorite method of tax terrorism of
> the American public by the greedy politicians, because they talk about
> shutting down people’s free speech rights and tax honesty websites in
> violation of the First Amendment, and they like quoting statistics on all
> the people who have gone to jail for “not paying their fair share”. Imagine
> that: Snake Oil salesmen in Congress trying to figure out a way to
> eliminate their competition!
> AssKisser is the favorite fair-haired boy of Senator Charles Grassley, who
> chairs the Senate Finance Committee. Politicians love him up on Capital$
> Hill because he’s so gifted at propaganda, verbal abuse, and slander. You
> could search his website for days and not find a single reliable fact. The
> only thing he is interested in is:
> Court rulings below the Supreme Court. He cherry-picks the few rulings that
> DIDN’T go unpublished and which favored the government and then says these
> are the “gospel”, in spite of the fact that the IRS’ own Internal Revenue
> Manual says in section 4.10.7.2.9.8 that rulings below the Supreme Court
> cannot be cited as applying to more than the specific “taxpayer” in
> question.
> Tax protesters who trash their fellow colleagues. Thurston Bell’s nite.org
> website has been shut down for quite some time and Thurston himself has been
> discredited by AssKisser’s own admission, but the AssKisser still loves
> quoting mainly Mr. Bell’s criticisms of his other fellow tax honesty
> advocates.
> AssKissers Method of Operation (MO) is as follows:
> Quote irrelevant caselaw if it proves the point you want.
> Ignore the source of jurisdiction in each case he quotes. For instance,
> ignore the citizenship or “taxpayer” status of the litigant. This helps
> reinforce the false notion that ALL AMERICANS are “taxpayers”, when in fact
> they aren’t.
> Print the first rumor that comes along.
> Ignore unpublished cases, which are the majority of cases and all of the
> cases where people won against the government.
> Don’t pay any attention to the trend to make federal tax cases unpublished.
> Never mind that the federal judiciary is covering up their own wrongdoing in
> what amounts to obstruction of justice and conspiracy against rights in
> violation of 18 U.S.C. §241.
> If you don’t understand the arguments or they are too prejudicial to the
> government, then just call them “frivolous”, which is the intellectually
> easy and lazy way and verbally abusive way to win any argument.
> When any argument gets too close to the truth, personalize it by slandering
> the messenger to divert attention away from the facts and the law. That way
> you never have to admit that you heard the truth. That’s EVIL.
> Disregard the fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction inside
> states of the Union by default and that jurisdiction can only be conferred
> by a ceding of state jurisdiction under the authority of 40 U.S.C. §255.
> Yes, the federal government does have very limited subject matter
> jurisdiction within states of the Union for certain very specific things,
> like mail fraud and counterfeiting, but direct taxation is not an authority
> delegated to them under the Constitution. The only taxing authority they
> have inside states of the union is on foreign commerce under 1:8:3 of the
> Constitution. See Chapter 5 of our Great IRS Hoax for a very thorough
> explanation of why this is the case, which is unrebutted by anyone.
> Since you know that everything you say is lies anyway, don’t ever put your
> name on anything, and ignore the fact that the IRS does the same thing with
> their own publication called “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”. If
> it’s not official and there is no formal author, then you can’t be held
> liable for misrepresentation because no one can prove you wrote it. That’s
> the key to what we call “plausible deniability” and its the only way to
> avoid having your license to practice law pulled if the lid ever blows on
> the huge Pozzi Scheme our government is pulling.
> Ignore the definition of “person” used for the criminal provisions of the
> Internal Revenue Code, which means an officer of a federal corporation or
> partnership. See also Great IRS Hoax section 5.4.8 and 26 U.S.C. sections
> 6671(b) and 7343.
> Ignore the fact that there are no implementing regulations under Part of of
> the CFR authorizing any kind of enforcement actions on Americans living in
> the 50 states, which by the way are MANDATORY for all enforcement authority.
> See Great IRS Hoax sections 5.4.6, 5.4.7, and 15.11.17.
> Confuse people about the meaning of the word “includes”. Make it into a
> “rubber word” that allows definitions to expand to fill any space at the
> whim of whatever judge is hearing the case. This provides a convenient
> vehicle to deceive people, to abuse Due Process, to deny justice, and
> transform our country from a society of laws (see Marbury v. Madison) into a
> society of men. It also provides a convenient way for judges and the IRS to
> violate the separation of powers doctrine and commit TREASON. Click here
> for details.
> Ignore the massive conflicts of interest created by the corruption of our
> tax system. Click here for details:
> When tax honesty advocates post anything in his Tax Protester Forum that he
> doesn’t agree with or he can’t argue with, he deletes it rather than
> responds to it. The forum we started on his website was locked so that no
> one could post to it, because he quite frankly doesn’t want the truth
> getting out. He is a coward and a Communist!
> ……THIS LIST GOES ON FOREVER. Click here to see more items to add to
> this infinite list.
> AssKisser is deaf to nearly everything and everyone else. He worships the
> federal judiciary and probably hasn’t cracked open a copy of the Internal
> Revenue Code or the Treasury Regulations in decades. His website features
> the most imbalanced and illogical view of federal taxation out there.
> AssKisser also happens to be the most evasive person we’ve met in regards to
> debating tax honesty issues. We have written this fool on several occasions
> to determine whether he is capable of rational thought on the subject of
> taxation. We didn’t contact him to ask questions or ask for legal advice,
> but only to ask him to rebut the overwhelming evidence of government
> wrongdoing right out of the government’s own mouth as reflected in the
> following publications:
> The Great IRS Hoax-book
> Rebutted version of the IRS’ “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”
> Rebutted version of the Congressional Research Report 97-59A entitled
> “Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax”.
> IRS Deposition Questions-expanded version of the We the People Truth in
> Taxation Hearing
> On each and every occasion, instead of sticking to the facts and issues
> addressed above, he simply returns our inquiry with insults, verbal abuse,
> and the frequent word “frivolous” without ever explaining why. Remember,
> the legal definition of the word “frivolous” is “without legal foundation or
> intended to harass”. We were polite and logical and simply asked for a
> rebuttal, and we got insults back, because AssKisser knows he would blow up
> the whole tax system if he told the truth. If he rebutted even one issue in
> any of the above publications, then he would obligate himself to explain all
> the contradictions and illegalities he then introduces into all of the other
> facts in the same document, and so he doesn’t dare respond to any of our
> materials. Never start an argument that you can’t win, and never tangle
> with a legal opponent who has all the evidence.
> AssKisser’s sponsors in the Senate Finance Committee are just as evasive as
> he is. We’ve sent at least one polite letter to Mr. Grassley asking him to
> rebut our rebutted version of the Congressional Research Report 97-59A
> entitled “Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax” and
> we got complete silence in return. That is what we call a “Fifth Amendment
> Response”. Read the letter we wrote for yourself.
> AssKisser’s attitude certainly doesn’t help anyone come to the truth of the
> matter, and we suspect he doesn’t want Americans to know the truth, quite
> frankly. He is like every other lawyer in the tax profession: His main
> goal is to keep the Truth about taxation OUT of the courtroom and out of the
> hands of the American public. As long as confusion and uncertainty and fear
> prevail in federal courtrooms all over the country in regards to taxation,
> then the Feudal system of Taxation that we have can continue unabated, and
> maintaining the status quo on federal taxation is where most of his bread
> and butter comes from.
> We wrote AssKisser several emails. Most recently, we asked him where he
> gets his funding. I’m sure you realize that lawyers don’t work for free,
> and in most cases, they entered the profession so they could get rich quick.
> Here was the interchange:
> QUESTION: Name: Mark
> City: San Diego
> State: CA
> Country: US
> Question: Since your site focuses on tax, trust, and money scams and is
> political in nature, its entirely appropriate as a nonprofit organization
> that you fully disclose where your contributions come from. This kind of
> full disclosure would bolster your credibility. I would like to donate but I
> refuse to do so without a full disclosure of your recipients and/or donating
> organizations. In particular, I would also like to know how much of the
> money comes either directly or indirectly from the following organizations: 1. The U.S. government 2. State governments
> 3. The American Bar Association 4. Trial lawyers. 5. Individuals not connected directly or indirectly with any of the above
> (as a percentage). I don’t want to know individual names.
> Mark
> ANSWER: Sure! The percentage of funding we receive is below: 1. The U.S. government
> NONE.
> 2. State governments
> NONE.
> 3. The American Bar Association
> NONE.
> 4. Trial lawyers.
> NONE.
> 5. Individuals not connected directly or indirectly with any of the above
> (as a percentage).
> 100% (mostly from mug sales — people love our mugs, but our caps are cool
> too!).
> Also, we are not a political group and do not advocate the election of any
> candidate of any party whatsoever.
> Hope this helps!
> Quatloos!
> He has only been selling mugs for about one of the last three years. How
> many of you believe that a tax lawyer, most of whom earn $300 or more per
> hour, is going to work basically for charity. And how many of you believe
> that the the very uncharitable things he says about tax honesty advocates
> have a charitable motive? Click here to read a few samples. We don’t
> believe that his efforts are charitable in any sense of the word.
> Charitable causes don’t trash people. We don’t trash people, we criticize
> bad (sinful) behavior, but no people. We don’t hate AssKisser, but we hate
> the evil that he does to people by misinforming them and by lying to them
> about what the tax laws say. AssKisser also contradicted his own words
> above in a posting on his Tax Protester’s forum on July 28, 2003, in which
> he said:
> I’m tempted to have the non-profit that sponsors Quatloos!, i.e., Financial
> and Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., apply for leave to join the suit
> as Amicus Curiae, and then immediately file a motion for Rule 11 sanctions
> against WTP and all involved. Those possibly interested in helping out with
> a such a lawsuit, contact me offline.
> Wait a minute! First he says all his revenues come from coffee mugs, and
> then he turns around and says that he instead is sponsored by a nonprofit
> group. You can’t have it both ways. Either coffee mugs or an external
> organization sponsor the costs, but he only mentioned one of the two so
> AssKisser must be a liar. Right after we posted this article, Mr. AssKisser
> trumped himself again in response to it. We found the above quote by
> searching his online forums using the “Search” button. Well, apparently
> when Mr. Askisser read this article, he responded by removing the “Search”
> button from his Tax Protester Forum to make it more difficult to find
> postings made by him that would further expose his fraudulent dealings!
> Click here and visit his tax protester forums and try to locate a “search”
> button for yourself if you don’t believe us!
> Below is how the Apostle Paul responded to people like AssKisser, which is
> consistent with how we view him:
> “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers [at the IRS],
> specially they of the circumcision:
> Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses [and families],
> teaching [and saying] things [about the tax laws] which they ought not, for
> filthy lucre’s [money's] sake.
> One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own [Senator Grassley of the
> Senate Finance Committee], said, The Cretians [tax protesters are] always
> liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
> This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them [IRS and government and
> AssKisser] sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
> Not giving heed to Jewish fables [in this case, the Internal Revenue Manual
> or the IRS Publications], and commandments of men [their 800 telephone
> support service, that gives wrong advice over 60% of the time by the IRS'
> own admission], that turn from the truth.
> Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and
> unbelieving [is] nothing pure [the IRS and the Congress and AssKisser]; but
> even their mind and conscience is defiled [their conscience has been warped
> because they took a bribe [by being a consultant, in the case of AssKisser,
> in violation of Exodus 23:8].
> They profess that they know God [and at least PRETEND that they love their
> brother and the people they serve]; but in [EVIL] works they deny [Him],
> being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”
> [Titus 1:10-16, Bible, NKJV]
> Copyright Chris Hansen
> By: Chris Hansen

MIKE IOANE AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE

The more I read up on how our government is corrupt I like the fact that Mike Ioane is fighting the IRS. Every wonder why Mike Ioane is suing the IRS?
According to a recent poll by Rasmussen Reports 3 out of 4 Americans, from across the spectrum of age, race, political affiliation and income, agree with Ron Paul and the 279 cosponsors of his bill (H.R. 1207) in the House of Representatives that the Federal Reserve should open its books to an independent audit.
This is yet another indication that the topic of the Federal Reserve is being pushed to the forefront of the United States awareness.
It was only a short time ago that Ron Paul would write legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve and it would be completely ignored if not scoffed at in Congress.
But since his surprisingly successful Presidential run, which scored a major victory in educating a large percentage of young people on the intricacies of the Federal Reserve System, fractional reserve banking and monetary policy, his fellow Congressmen have no choice but to sit up, take notice and sign on to his bill.
In a speech on the House floor yesterday, Ron Paul pointed to the fear that is becoming apparent in both the Federal Reserve System leadership as well as the leadership in Congress. He turned the old argument that is often used on the American people to pass legislation such as the Patriot Act and in defense of carrying out wiretapping…etc against the Federal Reserve. The argument that states that if you have nothing to hide you should have nothing to worry about.
Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve System demonstrated recently just how concerned they are with the momentum that House Resolution 1207 is building by holding a town hall meeting on PBS. During the town hall, Bernanke reiterated the same weak argument he stated to Ron Paul himself during his testimony before Congress. He said that by having an independent audit of the Federal Reserve it would politicize the monetary policy decisions that the Fed makes when contemplating a move in interest rates.
This argument is essentially a straw man, because H.R. 1207 does not give Congress the authority to go in and audit the Fed’s interest rate moves immediately after a decision is announced.
Bernanke takes that straw man argument a step further and says that the ability for Congress to audit the Fed would strip the Fed of its independence. But in reality it is already clear that the Fed takes cues both from the White House as well as Wall Street when deciding on where to place interest rates. Because if they were truly independent and had the best interest of the American public’s long term future in mind they would not keep interest rates artificially low, a practice that simply deflects a monetary crisis further into the future and continues to inflate a bubble.
When September comes Congress will reconvene and the youth of the nation will return to schools to be among their peers, the brushfire that is H.R. 1207 may be raging beyond the control of any Ben Bernanke town hall. It is then that all of H.R. 1207’s supporters may step up toe to toe with the Federal Reserve System. Neither side is willing to back down. If H.R. 1207 sees a vote on the House floor it may well be the first shot across the bow in a battle that will be the populous against the world financial oligarchy. May the best man win. I would like to see Mike Ioane bet the IRS. It will give us all a little bit of hope.

MIKE IOANE aka MICHAEL IOANE vs ARREST WARRANTS

Mike Ioane vs the Arrests .I found this interesting reading on findlaw.com. I think Mike Ioane is right and obviously has done his homework Arrests and Other Detentions .–That the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as against unreasonable searches was early assumed by Chief Justice Marshall 55 and is now established law. 56 At the common law, it was proper to arrest one who had committed a breach of the peace or a felony without a warrant, 57 and this history is reflected in the fact that the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the arrest is made in a public place on probable cause, regardless of whether a warrant has been obtained. 58 However, in order to effectuate an arrest in the home, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers must have a warrant. 59 The Fourth Amendment applies to ‘’seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants or probable cause in instances in which warrants may be forgone. 60 Some objective justification must be shown to validate all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of arrest, although the nature of the detention will determine whether probable cause or some reasonable and articulable suspicion is necessary. 61
Until relatively recently, the legality of arrests was seldom litigated in the Supreme Court because of the rule that a person detained pursuant to an arbitrary seizure–unlike evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search–remains subject to custody and presentation to court. 62 But the application of self-incrimination and other exclusionary rules to the States and the heightening of their scope in state and federal cases alike brought forth the rule that verbal evidence, confessions, and other admissions, like all derivative evidence obtained as a result of unlawful seizures, could be excluded. 63 Thus, a confession made by one illegally in custody must be suppressed, unless the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession had become so attenuated that the latter should not be deemed ”tainted” by the former. 64 Similarly, fingerprints and other physical evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest must be suppressed. 65
Searches and Inspections in Noncriminal Cases .–Certain early cases held that the Fourth Amendment was applicable only when a search was undertaken for criminal investigatory purposes, 66 and the Supreme Court until recently employed a reasonableness test for such searches without requiring either a warrant or probable cause in the absence of a warrant. 67 But in 1967, the Court held in two cases that administrative inspections to detect building code violations must be undertaken pursuant to warrant if the occupant objects. 68 ”We may agree that a routine inspection of the physical condition of private property is a less hostile intrusion than the typical policeman’s search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime. . . . But we cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment interests at stake in these inspection cases are merely ‘peripheral.’ It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.” 69 Certain administrative inspections utilized to enforce regulatory schemes with regard to such items as alcohol and firearms are, however, exempt from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and may be authorized simply by statute. 70
Camara and See were reaffirmed in Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 71 in which the Court held violative of the Fourth Amendment a provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act which authorized federal inspectors to search the work area of any employment facility covered by the Act for safety hazards and violations of regulations, without a warrant or other legal process. The liquor and firearms exceptions were distinguished on the basis that those industries had a long tradition of close government supervision, so that a person in those businesses gave up his privacy expectations. But OSHA was a relatively recent statute and it regulated practically every business in or affecting interstate commerce; it was not open to a legislature to extend regulation and then follow it with warrantless inspections. Additionally, OSHA inspectors had unbounded discretion in choosing which businesses to inspect and when to do so, leaving businesses at the mercy of possibly arbitrary actions and certainly with no assurances as to limitation on scope and standards of inspections. Further, warrantless inspections were not necessary to serve an important governmental interest, inasmuch as most businesses would consent to inspection and it was not inconvenient to require OSHA to resort to an administrative warrant in order to inspect sites where consent was refused. 72
In Donovan v. Dewey, 73 however, Barlow’s was substantially limited and a new standard emerged permitting extensive governmental inspection of commercial property, 74 absent warrants. Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, governing underground and surface mines (including stone quarries), federal officers are directed to inspect underground mines at least four times a year and surface mines at least twice a year, pursuant to extensive regulations as to standards of safety. The statute specifically provides for absence of advanced notice and requires the Secretary of Labor to institute court actions for injunctive and other relief in cases in which inspectors are denied admission. Sustaining the statute, the Court proclaimed that government had a ”greater latitude” to conduct warrantless inspections of commercial property than of homes, because of ”the fact that the expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individual’s home, and that this privacy interest may, in certain circumstances, be adequately protected by regulatory schemes authorizing warrantless inspections.” 75
Dewey was distinguished from Barlow’s in several ways. First, Dewey involved a single industry, unlike the broad coverage in Barlow’s. Second, the OSHA statute gave minimal direction to inspectors as to time, scope, and frequency of inspections, while FMSHA specified a regular number of inspections pursuant to standards. Third, deference was due Congress’ determination that unannounced inspections were necessary if the safety laws were to be effectively enforced. Fourth, FMSHA provided businesses the opportunity to contest the search by resisting in the civil proceeding the Secretary had to bring if consent was denied. 76 The standard of a long tradition of government supervision permitting warrantless inspections was dispensed with, because it would lead to ”absurd results,” in that new and emerging industries posing great hazards would escape regulation. 77 Dewey suggests, therefore, that warrantless inspections of commercial establishments are permissible so long as the legislature carefully drafts its statute.
Dewey was applied in New York v. Burger 78 to inspection of automobile junkyards and vehicle dismantling operations, a situation where there is considerable overlap between administrative and penal objectives. Applying the Dewey three-part test, the Court concluded that New York has a substantial interest in stemming the tide of automobile thefts, that regulation of vehicle dismantling reasonably serves that interest, and that statutory safeguards provided adequate substitute for a warrant requirement. The Court rejected the suggestion that the warrantless inspection provisions were designed as an expedient means of enforcing the penal laws, and instead saw narrower, valid regulatory purposes to be served: e.g., establishing a system for tracking stolen automobiles and parts, and enhancing the ability of legitimate businesses to compete. ”[A] State can address a major social problem both by way of an administrative scheme and through penal sanctions,” the Court declared; in such circumstances warrantless administrative searches are permissible in spite of the fact that evidence of criminal activity may well be uncovered in the process. 79
In other contexts, the Court has also elaborated the constitutional requirements affecting administrative inspections and searches. Thus, in Michigan v. Tyler, 80 it subdivided the process by which an investigation of the cause of a fire may be conducted. Entry to fight the fire is, of course, an exception based on exigent circumstances, and no warrant or consent is needed; firemen on the scene may seize evidence relating to the cause under the plain view doctrine. Additional entries to investigate the cause of the fire must be made pursuant to warrant procedures governing administrative searches. Evidence of arson discovered in the course of such an administrative inspection is admissible at trial, but if the investigator finds probable cause to believe that arson has occurred and requires further access to gather evidence for a possible prosecution, he must obtain a criminal search warrant. 81
One curious case has approved a system of ”home visits” by welfare caseworkers, in which the recipients are required to admit the worker or lose eligibility for benefits. 82 In another unusual case, the Court held that asheriff’s assistance to a trailer park owner in disconnecting and removing a mobile home constituted a ‘’seizure” of the home. Supp.1
In addition, there are now a number of situations, some of them analogous to administrative searches, where ”’special needs’ beyond normal law enforcement . . . justify departures from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements.” 83 In one of these cases the Court, without acknowledging the magnitude of the leap from one context to another, has taken the Dewey/Burger rationale–developed to justify warrantless searches of business establishments–and applied it to justify the significant intrusion into personal privacy represented by urinalysis drug testing. Because of the history of pervasive regulation of the railroad industry, the Court reasoned, railroad employees have a diminished expectation of privacy that makes mandatory urinalysis less intrusive and more reasonable. 84
With respect to automobiles, the holdings are mixed. Random stops of automobiles to check drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, and safety conditions were condemned as too intrusive; the degree to which random stops would advance the legitimate governmental interests involved did not outweigh the individual’s legitimate expectations of privacy. 85 On the other hand, in South Dakota v. Opperman, 86 the Court sustained the admission of evidence found when police impounded an automobile from a public street for multiple parking violations and entered the car to secure and inventory valuables for safekeeping. Marijuana was discovered in the glove compartment. The more that I do research on Michael Ioane’s case I find my self troubled. If they can take his rights away illegally – What would they do to any of us little people. I would love to get anyone opinion on Michael Ioane’s case.