Videos

WATCH an Illegal Traffic Stop Start to Finish. Bogus Dog Alert.

If the Fourth Amendment means anything, it’s that police can’t just pull you over, interrogate you, and ransack your car without a good reason to suspect you of a crime. ...But that’s exactly what happened to Alek Schott in 2022.

https://www.ij.org

Alek was driving home from a work trip on I-35 near San Antonio when a Bexar County sheriff’s deputy pulled him over for allegedly drifting between lanes. What should have been a momentary delay quickly turned into an unconstitutional fishing expedition.

After interrogating Alek for ten minutes, the deputy who detained him called a drug dog to search his truck. The dog allegedly “alerted” to the presence of drugs, and police proceeded to tear apart Alek’s truck. But they found nothing because there was nothing to find.

From the very beginning, the traffic stop was unconstitutional. Footage from Alek’s own dashcam shows he never drifted lanes. Bodycam footage from the deputy shows Alek gave the officer calm, mundane answers about a run-of-the-mill work trip. Nothing about what he said was suspicious, but the deputy called a drug dog anyway. And moments before the dog alerted by jumping on the truck, the handler’s bodycam shows that he signaled the dog.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits stop-first, justify-later policing. Police must have a fact-based suspicion of a crime before making a stop, a valid reason to extend that stop, and either a warrant, consent, or an objective reason to believe there’s contraband inside to search a vehicle. In Alek’s case, the deputy failed to meet any of these criteria and instead used an unjustified traffic stop to probe into crimes Alek hadn’t committed.

Alek is partnering with the Institute for Justice to sue the deputies and Bexar County for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Because if we the people must follow the law, government officials must follow the Constitution.[+] Show More

WATCH an Illegal Traffic Stop Start to Finish. Bogus Dog Alert.

If the Fourth Amendment means anything, it’s that police can’t just ...

$6 Billion for DOJ Civil Forfeitures??

A Sanctuary for Needy Animals is Under Threat

PRIVATE Company Tries to SEIZE Land thru Eminent Domain

#Shorts #EminentDomain #PropertyRights #Georgia

Why is starting a biz in NYC so difficult?

For more guidance on New York can make it cheaper, faster, and simpler ...

Journalist Arrested for Exercising His Press Freedom Rights

Learn more about this case here: ...

FDA Says Oat Milk Can Call Itself Milk... For Now

To learn more, read IJ's press release: ...

SCOTUS Must Tell TX: You Break it, You Bought It

Learn more about Richie's case here: ...

AZ Gov. Hobbs VETOES Popular Food Bill

Learn more here: ...

SCOTUS Rejects Appeal, Immunity for Corrupt Prosecutors

Learn more about this case here: ...

IRS Agents Are Untouchable

Archie the Goat Needs Your Help

Fairytale Farm Animal Sanctuary is a refuge for abused and neglected ...

Fairytale Farm Animal Sanctuary is a refuge for abused and neglected donkeys, goats, rabbits, ducks, and more. The sanctuary is also the home of Kimberly Dunckel and her family. But ...when the Dunckels invite visitors to their home, they risk being cited by city officials for running afoul of the zoning code.

https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-animal-sanctuary-fights-back-against-crushing-zoning-restrictions/

Winston-Salem’s zoning code would allow the Dunckels to operate a home day care or teach music lessons. But because operating a nonprofit animal shelter is not explicitly allowed, the city says that the sanctuary cannot have events, teach classes, or host groups of volunteers. Because engaging the community at their home is critical to supporting Fairytale Farm, the Dunckels teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in state court challenging the restrictions on visitors.

“Winston-Salem’s zoning power does not trump Kimberly Dunckel’s right to use her property to serve the community,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Anna Goodman. “She’s not hurting anyone, she’s only helping. And the city cannot prohibit her and her family from using their property as an animal sanctuary just because it was not creative enough to consider that potential use.”

In 2017, Kimberly and her husband Art began searching for a property that would serve both as a home and a place to host the Winston-Salem community. After purchasing and restoring their 3.3-acre lot, they started caring for animals, many with special needs and some referred to the sanctuary by the local government animal control. In 2021, they registered Fairytale Farm as a non-profit. They hosted groups of Girl Scouts and homeschoolers, held themed events for people to meet with the animals, and welcomed groups of volunteers to help with care and upkeep of the sanctuary.

But earlier this year, the city ordered the Dunckels to close the sanctuary completely. After an outpouring of community support, the city changed its mind but gave the Dunckels new and confusing restrictions on the visitors they could host at their home. Those restrictions have made it difficult for the sanctuary to fundraise, threatening its long-term sustainability.

“We hoped that the animals we invited to Fairytale Farm would have a happily ever after, but the city’s senseless restrictions are making it difficult to care for these rescues that have already been through so much,” said Kimberly. “We’ve been operating for over a year without complaint and taking in animals that local shelters don’t have a place for. It seems like we’re being singled out for doing something good that doesn’t fit neatly into the zoning code.”

Zoning codes in the U.S. often seek to prohibit people from using their property in safe, reasonable ways. IJ is currently defending a Texas mother seeking to operate a home daycare, a Texas mechanic required to provide an impossible number of parking spots before he can open his shop, and an Idaho woman who can park her tiny home on wheels in her town but is banned from living in it.[+] Show More

Criminal charges for flying a drone??

Leanrn more about this case here: ...

Serve and Protect? More like Ticket and Collect

Watch the full case video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cil2gdCa-k

Texas Dam Turns Family Farm Into Lake. State Refuses to Pay

“If you break it, you buy it” is a simple rule that anyone who has ...

“If you break it, you buy it” is a simple rule that anyone who has shopped at a Pottery Barn probably already knows. It means that if you cause damage ...to someone else’s property, you are responsible for paying for that damage. And yet, the state of Texas argues that this basic tenet does not apply to state governments when they take private property for public use. Unfortunately, in direct defiance of decades of Supreme Court precedent, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and now the Institute for Justice (IJ) is helping a fourth-generation family farm appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://ij.org/press-release/texas-farmer-asks-supreme-court-to-adopt-pottery-barn-rule-if-the-government-breaks-something-it-buys-it/

“There is not an asterisk next to the Fifth Amendment that says the government doesn’t have to pay just compensation if it doesn’t want to,” said Institute for Justice Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed Americans’ right to just compensation is an inherent part of the Constitution. It cannot be ignored or circumvented by the government or the courts.”

Richie Devillier is a farmer who has lived on his family’s land in Winnie, Texas, for generations. For as long as anyone can remember, the Devilliers’ land has never flooded—that is, until the early 2000s, when the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) renovated a nearby highway. In an effort to make sure the eastbound lanes of the highway would be available as an evacuation route in the event of a major flood, TxDOT raised the highway’s elevation and built an impermeable concrete barrier down the median.

Now, whenever a major storm hits, the Devillier family farm and many of the surrounding properties are inundated. The effects have been devastating. When Hurricane Harvey hit the Houston area, countless acres of crops were ruined. For days their farmland resembled a lake. Innumerable cows and horses died—drowned, or just killed by the cumulative effects of standing chest-deep in water for days on end. The damage was enormous. Two years later, while the Devillier family was still recovering, Tropical Storm Imelda hit the area, and once again their land flooded. When they complained, the state did next to nothing and refused to pay for the damage caused by its public works project.

“My family has farmed this land for generations, and we’ve never seen anything like this flooding before,” said Richie. “It destroyed our crops, killed our animals, and caused untold damage to our property. I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to farm this land again without worrying that we’ll lose everything in an instant. When we talked to the state, they basically said ‘tough luck.’ That’s not right. We shouldn’t have to pay the price for a public works project that benefits the entire community. We’re not asking that they get rid of the wall. The only thing we’re asking for is the right that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution—the right to be compensated for the damage done to our property.”

Their only option was to take the state to court, which they did in 2020. Texas courts allow property owners to file lawsuits for takings of their property, but Texas’ lawyers asked to have the case moved to federal court. Once they were there, they asked the federal judge to throw the case out because Congress has never passed a law allowing people to sue states for taking their property. That’s true—federal civil-rights laws only allow lawsuits against people, not against states—but courts across the country have held that, when it comes to takings, people do not need a law giving them a remedy. Instead, the Constitution, which guarantees “just compensation” for takings, guarantees the remedy. Shockingly, though, the Fifth Circuit sided with Texas, holding that property owners whose land is taken by the state don’t have any federal remedy at all. The Devilliers’ claim did not exist at all.

That ruling is wrong, and it conflicts with rulings of both the Supreme Court and other courts nationwide. That is why the Institute for Justice has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to take up the Devillier family’s case and affirm that states cannot ignore the Constitution.

“Federal courts are supposed to be places where citizens go to have their constitutional rights vindicated,” said IJ Litigation Fellow Trace Mitchell. “This ruling turns them into places where the government can run to hide when they have violated people’s rights.”

“This case is about holding the government accountable and ensuring that the Constitution’s protections for property owners are respected,” said Scott Bullock, chief counsel and president of the Institute for Justice. “The Institute for Justice will continue to fight for the property rights of all Americans, and we believe that this case will be a critical turning point in that ongoing struggle.”[+] Show More

Videos

WATCH an Illegal Traffic Stop Start to Finish. Bogus Dog Alert.

Stay Informed