Amendment IV

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Many view it as the attempt to uphold the professed “all men are created equal” clause written in the Constitution. The Equal protection law implies that no State has the right to deny anyone within jurisdiction equal protection of the law." Ref:  http://constitution.laws.com/equal-protection-clause

The following Supreme Court of the United States addresses an near identical property situation that was decided in favor of the property owner. We intend to use this decision to defeat the sewage mandate in Johnstown.

U.S. Supreme Court

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)

Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco

No. 92

Argued February 15, 1967

Decided June 5, 1967

387 U.S. 523

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

Syllabus

Appellant was charged with violating the San Francisco Housing Code for refusing, after three efforts by city housing inspectors to secure his consent, to allow a warrantless inspection of the ground-floor quarters which he leased and residential use of which allegedly violated the apartment building's occupancy permit. Claiming the inspection ordinance unconstitutional for failure to require a warrant for inspections, appellant while awaiting trial, sued in a State Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, which the court denied. Relying on Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360, and similar cases, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The State Supreme Court denied a petition for hearing.

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to permit a warrantless code enforcement inspection of his personal residence. Frank v. Maryland, supra, pro tanto overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 528-534.

(a) The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. P. 387 U. S. 528.

(b) With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of private property is "unreasonable." Pp. 387 U. S. 528-529.

(c) Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland, supra, Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs, moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow an inspection. Pp. 387 U. S. 529-531.

(d) Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants;

Page 387 U. S. 524

that warrant in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspection programs could not function under reasonable search warrant requirements. Pp. 387 U. S. 531-533.

2. Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area code enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code, but on the reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. The standards to guide the magistrate in the issuance of such search warrants will necessarily vary with the municipal program being enforced. Pp. 387 U. S. 534-539.

3. Search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused. Pp. 387 U. S. 539-540.

4. In the nonemergency situation here, appellant had a right to insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant. P. 387 U. S. 540.

237 Cal.App.2d 128, 46 Cal.Rptr. 585, vacated and remanded. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

This issue affects everyone whose sewage runs into the Johnstown Regional sewage system. The Westmont example that follows can be applied to all properties that are under this mandate.

The Westmont ordinance.

On May 1, 2015, the Westmont Borough council members began requiring all homeowners to upgrade their private sewage lines in order to prevent ground water from entering the public sewage lines. Currently their ordinance prevents owners from selling their homes by making it unlawful to transfer a title before a compliance test has been satisfied.  Eventually this mandate will extend to all homeowners even if they are not selling their homes.

This ordinance could cost you thousands if not, tens of thousands of dollars to comply. The net effect on your property values is that it will further erode your investment into your home.

My attorneys inform me that the ordinance is an unconstitutional intrusion into your privacy and violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore legally unenforceable, yet some home owners are submitting to the mandate to just get out of the Borough. When challenged the Westmont Borough Council members have simply refuse to listen to their constitutions and reverse their mandate.

I am prepared to spearhead a legal challenge in Federal Court to block the mandate on constitutional grounds, but I need your help.

We need to raise a minimum of $10,000 to retain counsel to undertake this campaign. Your contributions will not be accepted unless we reach our goal. There is no risk to donate.

Please consider supporting this cause to save our community from excessive government intrusion into our home investments.

Thanks and best regards,

Doc