Videos

These Inspectors Think “Open for Business” Means “No Warrant Required”

Jeremy Bennett had no idea that asking an Ohio Department of Natural Resources officer to come back when his taxidermy shop was open for the season meant that he might ...face jail time for “denying” an inspection. Unfortunately, the courts have opened the door to this troubling disregard for property rights and facilitated warrantless inspections policies that affect a wide variety of businesses. In today’s show, we’ll discuss how this happened, how it affects ordinary Americans like Jeremy, who are just trying to earn a living, and what can be done to make things right.

Host: Melanie Hildreth
Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer and IJ Attorney Josh Windham

More podcasts: https://ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/

Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom—directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how—and why—we do what we do.

iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr[+] Show More

These Inspectors Think “Open for Business” Means “No Warrant Required”

Jeremy Bennett had no idea that asking an Ohio Department of Natural [...]

Mechanic challenges Pasadena, Texas' mandatory parking minimum in state court

Azael Sepulveda, also known as Oz, loves everything about cars. He has [...]

Azael Sepulveda, also known as Oz, loves everything about cars. He has a popular YouTube channel where more than 22 million viewers have watched him explain how to perform car ...repairs.

https://ij.org/case/texas-mechanic

He also has successfully run his own repair shop, Oz Mechanics, for 9 years with stellar reviews. Recently, Azael decided he wanted to expand his business by moving out of his leased space and buying his own shop. Azael’s dreams seemed to be coming true when he bought a storefront in his hometown of Pasadena, Texas, in the summer of 2021. But instead of welcoming his investment in his community, the city of Pasadena forbade Azael from opening. The reason? The City decided that he had to provide 28 parking spaces—a nearly sixfold increase from the five existing spaces at the storefront—just to open his business. Azael would never need this many spots for his shop, as he is a one-man operation that takes cars by appointment only. And installing the new spots would cost him at least $40,000—almost half the price of the property and more than he can possibly afford.

As a result of the City’s unreasonable demands, Azael cannot open his new shop. This is despite the fact that the previous business that operated at the storefront—an auto machine shop similar to Azael’s — used the existing five spaces with no problems or complaints. Making matters worse, Azael tried to follow the procedure the City itself recommended to apply for an exception from the parking requirements. But when he applied, the City refused to even consider his application.

Pasadena’s requirements are unconstitutional. The Texas Constitution prohibits governments from enforcing unreasonable or overly oppressive laws that burden a person’s economic or property rights. Yet Pasadena’s parking minimums for auto repair shops have no reasonable justification and are so oppressive that they prevent entrepreneurs like Azael from opening businesses on their own property.

Azael has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back against the City’s crippling and unreasonable demands. He has filed a lawsuit asking Texas state courts to strike down Pasadena’s auto-shop parking requirements and allow him to exercise his right to earn an honest living on his own property.[+] Show More

[DashCam] Cop pulls gun on two innocent boys, threatens mom with Taser.

A police officer arrested two innocent children at gunpoint. Now they [...]

A police officer arrested two innocent children at gunpoint. Now they are asking the Supreme Court to hold the officer accountable.

A court said the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted ...arrests is “hazy.” Now, with IJ’s help, a family is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clear the haze and rein in police’s ability to arrest someone for no reason.

https://ij.org/support/give-now/pollreis/

Rarely a day goes by that Americans don’t hear news of police wrongfully arresting someone. In many ways, Americans have grown numb to the fact that police and other government officials routinely violate our Fourth Amendment rights. But today, an Arkansas family working with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit public interest law firm, has asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm one of this country’s most important founding principles: that when government officials violate our constitutional rights, citizens can hold them accountable in court.

The case started in January 2018, when Haden and Weston Young—two boys, aged 12 and 14—were heading home from their grandparents’ house after a family dinner. As they approached their home, a police car came around the corner with its lights on. The car stopped and the officer emerged with his gun drawn. He had no reason to believe that two boys who were walking calmly toward his car posed any threat. And yet, within moments, the officer—who was looking for two grown men who’d fled from police earlier—shouted “get on the ground,” handcuffed the boys, and held them at gunpoint.

The boys’ mom, Casondra “Cassi” Pollreis, watched the scene unfold from her front yard. She rushed to the scene and pleaded with the officer, “They are my boys!” The officer ignored her pleas, pointed his Taser at her and shouted to get back inside. For six terrifying minutes the boys lay face down on a sidewalk while the officer paced around them with his gun pointed at their backs. Eventually the officer’s sergeant arrived, assessed the scene, immediately realized a mistake had been made and let the boys go. The officer got back in his car, closed the door, and said to himself “duuummb.” He knew that what he did was wrong.

The incident didn’t end that night. Cassi and the boys talked with a lawyer and decided to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the officer for making a wrongful arrest. The district court agreed and found that the officer had violated the boys’ Fourth Amendment rights, writing that “handcuffing two boys laying facedown on the ground, at gunpoint,” was “more intrusive than necessary.” But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, found that the boys had never been “arrested” at all. Instead, it said that what constitutes an arrest “can be hazy,” and that the officer’s conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Now, with the help of IJ, Cassi and her boys have asked the United States Supreme Court to take up their case. Today they filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the Court to rein in the ever-expanding doctrine of “stop and frisk” and make clear that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from being arrested without probable cause.

“Through silence and inaction, the Supreme Court has allowed the doctrine of ‘stop and frisk’ to morph into ‘stop, drop, handcuff, and hold at gunpoint,’” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara. “As the number of involuntary encounters between citizens and government officials has soared in recent decades, the rules protecting citizens from abuse in those encounters have withered. The Fourth Amendment is not ‘hazy’ when it comes to our basic right to go about our business without being assaulted by government agents who’ve lost their cool.”

At issue in the case is what is called a “Terry stop,” which is named after a 1968 Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio. In Terry, the Supreme Court held that police officers had a “narrow authority” to briefly detain someone without probable cause and pat them down to ensure they aren’t carrying any weapons—but that’s all. Since then, many federal courts—like the Eighth Circuit in this case—have broadened Terry’s authority to include highly intrusive, sometimes violent law enforcement conduct as constitutionally permissible. At the same time, other courts have reined in the practice.

Today’s petition is part of the Institute for Justice’s mission to fight on behalf of those individuals who are denied their rights and to hold government officials accountable for their unconstitutional actions. IJ stands up for ordinary American’s Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their both their property and persons. Most recently, IJ filed a lawsuit in Ohio to stop “whenever, wherever” business inspections. IJ has also filed lawsuits across the country standing up for tenants’ right to be free from warrantless home inspections.[+] Show More

When Can Your Past Bar You From a Job—And When Should It?

In Virginia, any one of 176 so-called barrier crimes can disqualify a [...]

Watch Cops Seize Combat Vet's Life Savings [RARE FOOTAGE]

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube [...]

Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture.

Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. ...He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.

https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/

In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.

The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.

Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.

In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.

Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.

When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”

And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.

Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.[+] Show More

Taxidermist Threatened with Jail for Refusing Warrantless Search

Jeremy Bennett built his taxidermy and deer processing business from [...]

Jeremy Bennett built his taxidermy and deer processing business from the ground up. After teaching himself the craft in high school, he slowly grew his business from a part-time gig ...into a flourishing business through hard work and quality workmanship. He even designed and built, by hand, the two-story shop that houses his taxidermy and deer processing businesses.

https://ij.org/case/ohio-warrantless-inspections/

Jeremy’s shop is a private space. It sits on his property just a few dozen feet from his home, where he and his wife home-school their five young children. His wife helps with the books and his children are frequent visitors during the day. Customers visit the shop by appointment only and, even then, there are private areas in the shop where customers are not allowed.

But Jeremy’s desire for privacy doesn’t matter to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Although Ohio does not regulate the work of taxidermists and deer processors, it does require them to maintain records of the animals they work on. And to enforce that recordkeeping requirement, ODNR grants its wildlife officers free rein to inspect taxidermy and deer processing shops without warrants.

For years, these warrantless searches were only a minor inconvenience for Jeremy. But following a personnel change at ODNR in 2011, the searches became increasingly intrusive and disruptive. During an inspection of his deer processing shop at the height of hunting season in 2020, he politely asked an officer to come back and inspect his taxidermy shop when it opened in a few weeks. Jeremy was then criminally prosecuted and threatened with jail time. Now, Jeremy has no choice but to comply with future warrantless searches or else face additional criminal charges.

ODNR’s treatment of Jeremy and other taxidermists and deer processors is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment generally forbids warrantless searches of private businesses. And although ODNR has pointed to an exception for “closely regulated industries,” Ohio doesn’t even regulate taxidermists or deer processors—it just requires them to keep simple records. If the government can side-step the Fourth Amendment by requiring businesses to keep records, then no business would ever be free from warrantless searches.

Now Jeremy, represented by the Institute for Justice, is fighting back to protect his constitutional rights. Jeremy has filed a federal lawsuit asking the court to hold that ODNR’s warrantless inspections violate the Fourth Amendment, because a simple recordkeeping requirement does not make it open season for government officials to barge into your place of business whenever they want.

Filmed on a Canon C70 with a .071x adapter with a Canon 24-105mm ii, 50mm 1.2 EF, and various other lenses. Zacuto shoulder rig and follow focus.[+] Show More

Big Brother Wants to Snoop on Your Bank Account and Home; This Will Stop Them

The Institute for Justice’s Project on the Fourth Amendment strives to [...]

She's Taking on a Tiny House Ban

Americans have been living in small homes for generations. People [...]

Americans have been living in small homes for generations. People choose to live in small homes for a variety of reasons, from environmental concerns and simplicity to cost. But Calhoun, ...Georgia, like cities around the country, is denying people the ability to even make that choice. Despite the demand for small homes in Calhoun, the government is banning the construction of homes less than 1,150 square feet.

https://ij.org/case/georgia-tiny-homes/

Cindy Tucker started volunteering for Tiny House Hand Up, or THHU, to help hardworking residents of Calhoun and surrounding Gordon County achieve their dreams of homeownership by filling a niche for smaller, less costly homes. But the city of Calhoun has banned THHU from moving forward with their plan because the homes aren’t as large as the city demands.

Cindy and THHU are ready to break ground on the “Cottages at King Corner,” a community of beautiful, Southern-style cottages with 540 to 600 square feet of living space each. They have housing plans, support from a financial institution to help finance mortgages, and contractors at the ready. All they need is for the government to get out of the way.

There is no reason to ban smaller homes, which people have built and lived in for generations. Smaller homes comply with all building code requirements concerning health and safety. And it makes no sense to say that a community of beautiful cottage homes would negatively affect neighbors when Calhoun was willing to let Cindy and THHU build a truck terminal, warehouse, or scrap metal processing center in the same place. The only reason to ban smaller homes is to exclude so-called “undesirable” people who could afford to buy them and to artificially inflate property values in Calhoun by forcing people to build unnecessarily large homes.

That is not just wrong, it is unconstitutional. Georgia’s Constitution requires zoning laws to be substantially related to public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Calhoun’s ban on smaller homes is not related to anything other than excluding people with lower incomes and forcing people to live in homes that are larger than they want.

That is why Cindy and THHU have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to use their property the same way people have always used their property: to build and live in modestly sized homes. On October 27, 2021, they filed a petition to allow a lawsuit to go forward, asking the court to find that the City of Calhoun’s ban on smaller homes violates the Georgia Constitution.[+] Show More

Grand Theft Auto in Wilmington, Delaware

In Wilmington, Delaware, any car with more than $200 in outstanding [...]

Cops Took $7,000 Cash from Javier and Never Gave It Back (and the Same Thing Could Happen to You)

The federal government and most states use civil forfeiture to take [...]

This man was banned from being a counselor. He's fighting back.

People who have overcome drug or alcohol addiction often want to help [...]

People who have overcome drug or alcohol addiction often want to help others overcome addiction, too. Their first-hand experience can make them particularly well-suited to guide others through recovery.

https://ij.org/case/virginia-fresh-start/

Rudy Carey ...is one of those people. After a long battle with drug and alcohol addiction, in 2007, Rudy completed rehab and turned his life around. Then he got married, completed hundreds of hours of coursework and training in substance-abuse counseling, and started a career as a counselor at a Fredericksburg, Virginia treatment facility.

Unbeknownst to Rudy, his career was illegal.

That’s because Virginia bans people with convictions for any of 176 “barrier crimes” from being employed in a “direct care” position, which includes substance-abuse counselors. Generally, the ban applies no matter how old the conviction, how unrelated it is to substance-abuse counseling, or how little it reflects the person’s fitness today. As a result, old mistakes still prevent many people who have overcome addiction themselves from counseling the people they are uniquely fit to help.

For Rudy, the ban meant that after five years of excellent work, Virginia sent his employer a letter saying that he was banned from working as a substance-abuse counselor there—or anywhere else in the commonwealth—forever. Not because he wasn’t qualified: Rudy’s clients loved his work. Rather, Virginia banned Rudy from counseling because of a single assault conviction from 2004—well before he turned his life around. In other words, Virginia is judging who Rudy was nearly two decades ago. It should be judging who he is today.

The U.S. Constitution protects Americans’ right to earn an honest living free from irrational government interference. Banning Rudy from working isn’t rational—it just deprives people battling addiction of a qualified, sympathetic counselor. That’s why Rudy has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit challenging Virginia’s lifetime ban. A victory will vindicate a simple truth: that no one should be denied the right to work because of irrelevant criminal convictions.

Filmed on a Canon C70 with a .071x adapter with a Canon 24-105mm ii, 50mm 1.2 EF, and various other lenses. Zacuto shoulder rig and follow focus.[+] Show More

Cops seize $41,680 From INNOCENT Man. Wasn’t Charged With a Crime

Police in Texas’s most populous county routinely ask drivers if they [...]

Police in Texas’s most populous county routinely ask drivers if they have cash in the car, only to seize the cash, accuse it of a crime, and drive away with ...it in their patrol car. Texas’s civil forfeiture law allows police and prosecutors to take cash from people they don’t arrest, and hand it over to prosecutors so that they can bend the power of Texas’s civil courts to keep the cash permanently in their own budgets. Forfeiture abuse in Texas is fueled by a perverse financial incentive: police and prosecutors can seize and forfeit cash from people, and that cash can then be used to fund salaries and overtime—their own paychecks. That kind of policing for profit isn’t just wrong; it’s unconstitutional.

https://ij.org/case/texas-forfeiture-ii/

Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis got trapped by Harris County’s forfeiture racket and want their life savings back. To pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business, Ameal and Jordan saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low. They accumulated over $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner. On May 14, 2019, after weeks of scouring ads for used tractor-trailers, Ameal was ready to buy one of his own. He drove from Natchez, Mississippi, and headed towards Houston. But when he arrived in Harris County, police pulled Ameal over, took his cash, and sent him on his way without so much as a warning.

For the past two years, the couple heard nothing from Harris County due to the County’s feeble efforts to satisfy the most basic of constitutional requirements: notice. Who could afford to have their life savings taken away for more than two years with no hearing and no opportunity to go before a judge? Over that time, others like Ameal and Jordan also lost their cash to police, and County prosecutors used Texas’s civil courts, not criminal courts, to keep the cash permanently.

Harris County has an unconstitutional financial incentive to seize and forfeit cash and other property without probable cause and to do so excessively, sweeping in innocent people and property. Its practice of using form affidavits, vague allegations, and tough tactics instead of evidence of crimes also violates the Texas Constitution. That is why Ameal and Jordan have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a major class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Harris County’s civil forfeiture program.[+] Show More

City Caught Scrapping Cars for Unpaid Parking Tickets

Challenging Wilmington’s tow-and-impound racket, which pays private [...]

A federal agent tried to shoot an innocent man. Will the Supreme Court allow accountability?

Find out more: https://ij.org/support/give-now/byrd/ What does it take [...]

Will the Supreme Court overturn its infamous decision letting developers take your property?

Though Susette Kelo’s fight to save her home from her city’s efforts [...]

Videos

These Inspectors Think “Open for Business” Means “No Warrant Required”

Stay Informed