There was the case of Georgia Thompson a Wisconsin woman who had the misfortune of working for a Democratic Governor when the local US Attorney received a call from Washinton telling him that his job was on the line if he didn't help the Republican party.  Being a good Federalist Society member, he stepped up to the plate and convicted her of doing her job.  She went to jail.  Luckily she lives in a state where the local Circuit Court of Appeals is not comprised of Federalist sheep.  Not so lucky Don Siegelman, who was convicted of being a Democratic Governor in a Southern State, and whose conviction is unlikely to be overturned by a Circuit Court comprised primarily of loyal Republican Federalists. At least the NYT and others have picked up his case. But it's rather sad, don't you think, that we have such obvious political prisoners in this country. Usually we hide it much better than this.

were still doing searches months after the "report", the Distric Attorney's jaw just dropped.  The judges eyes bugged out and I started asking a whole series of questions.

I'm amazed that this is just now becoming news. As of five years ago, searches like this were routine. Any suspicion whatsoever resulted in searches, which was usually a report from a neighbor, or the building inspector seeing something (or someone) he shouldn't while on a routine inspection of another home (in this case, for safety purposes).

Complain as we might, the fact is there's a LOT of welfare fraud going on. 25% of our voucher holders were suspected of it, and we kicked multiple people off the program a month, for reasons varying from drugs, to lying about the occupants of the home (having a boyfriend there who made enough to make them ineligible, for instance), to allowing an abusive partner into their home after accepting the voucher from a battered women's shelter.

Will landlords ever be designated the agents? Hell no. The Section 8 agents trust the landlords less than they do the tenants.

I'm as staunch a liberal as they come, but frankly, there are enough people violating the system that the situation merits it. Assuming the San Diego folks are operating like us, a surprise inspection takes five minutes. And like it or not, you agree to this when you accept the voucher. Have for years. It's to ensure that people who NEED vouchers GET them.

There's only one group of people I feel sorry for here, and it's the minimal percentage of voucher holders who really do use it as a stopgap measure. Not that I can speak for the entire country, but I find it incredibly disturbing that we have a grandmother on Section 8, her daughter on Section 8, and while I was working there, she brought HER daughter in on her 18th birthday to apply for her voucher, same as all the other daughters have. Happy Birthday!

Florida's new shoot first law would enable my my tenant to shoot me if I went into his apartment unannounced if he 'feels' threatened.

I may have once been totally anti-gun but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it should be mandatory for every citizen to have an AK-47 wrapped in anti-rust coating and a sealed case of ammunition in their houses for when it's time to take up arms against an opressive government.

quiet enjoyment and privacy a statutory element of any rental agreement for residential housing.  Also, quiet enjoyment is an essential element of common law month to month tenancies.

My lease and the law here in SF says my landlord can only come into my apartment if there is an immediate emergency, ie: fire.

Otherwise he must give me a minimum of 24 hours notice that he plans to enter the unit.

no reason why crackheads like Rumsfeld, Gonzo and Michael Hayden ought to be able to escape.

I want hair pulled and blood drawn. I want spinal taps done to see if they are using lsd. And I want these tests to be done while they are swearing on whatever book they wish to pledge their allegence to the constitution on. Then I want these tests to be random, just like it is when you work at wal-mart.

If a cashier at wal-mart needs to be randomly drug tested, then so do our legislators and especially our president.

the "and" following probably indicates we have an independent clause.

Technically, GP is right: you don't need a warrant to search in an "administrative" investigation, as opposed to a criminal investigation which is one of the reasons that breaking down the "Chinese Wall" in the Patriot Act was dangerous, dangerous.

A building inspector or health inspector can inspect your home if he has reasonable grounds to suspect it is a public danger or nuisance.

What really troubles me here, aside from the stupid,mean spirit of humiliation and waste of taxpayer dollars, is that the inspections are unannounced.   That could lead to fishing expeditions through the private lives of aid recipients.  It's not really their business if you are a follower of Santeria, or a reader of Karl Marx.

Of course being tipped off, some of the aid recipients may be able to hide their cases of champagne and caviar, but that's a risk we ought to accept.   They aren't going to be able to cart out the expensive furniture, plasma TVs, oriental rugs etc.

and on reason the Fourth Amendment was adopted in the terms that it was, was to prevent the executive from issuing General Warrants, which was the practice during the colonial period leading up to the revolution.  The standard is not "reasonableness" but that any search not pursuant to a warrant signed by a "neutral magistrate", as the Supreme Court has consistently held, based upon probable cause, and with the required specificity is unreasonable.  Whils this has been expanded over time to allow searches in exigent circumstance, such as in cases of imminent danger to persons, or during arrest, and unfortunately to the searches of motor vehicles, the default standard is a judicially issued warrant.
   I haven't seen the papers on the San Diego case yet, but if they ducked because to search wasn't by law enforcement, then we are in much deeper trouble than it first seems.  There is already a black mourning ribbon around the frame of my Supreme Court certificate of admission.  It may becoming time to send it back. I wonder if the Supreme Court is any longer a Court of Law, but has become a political court, as in the old USSR.