I am still trying to figure this one out. All that I have seen so far is that homeland security is a way for the U.S. government to legally (because we all that they do it anyway) invade our “right to privacy”. Yes that IS in quotation marks.

Today the Senate is expected to vote on the new Homeland Security Bill. When this bill was originally proposed by President Bush it had so few check and balances that it had to be revised. Although I am not sure why, other than a front to appease the American public. Which is even funnier because about 90% of them do not seem to care, I can only guess it was done for the other 10% of us. In which case because we cannot do anything about it, all it does is patronize. I will try to keep my sarcastic comments to a minimum so that they do not cloud the facts.

The fact of the matter is that President Bush has devised another way to take more civil liberties from the American Citizen. This Bill will merge together 22 current U.S. government agencies which are comprised of over 170,000 people. This “agency” will be “run” by these people, However, Bush has already let it be known that he will reject for signing, any bill that will limit in any way his flexibility of running this department Sooo, like I said this “agency” will be “run” by these people.

The two most important facts: It does not prohibit the execution of a citizen spy network. This network itself is mad. The TIPS (Terrorism Information Prevention System)encourages racial profiling and urges people to treat all neighbors as suspects and denounce them guilty until proven innocent… and we all know how far that has brought this country in the last 130 years. This brings me to another question to ask myself: I wonder if part of the goal of the TIPS program is to encourage the U.S. Citizens to place their common distrust in their neighbor instead of their government… But I will not explore this now because I’m sure it is just irrational thinking on my part.

Also, this Bill fails to include any type of legislation to protect civil rights. NONE whatsoever. WTF? (okay I couldn’t help that one). I’m not even going to delve into this one…we would be her all day…and I KNOW you can get the point…Civil Rights people. C.I.V.I.L. R.I.G.H.T.S.

…I can post facts on this Bill all day …there are plenty…but instead I will choose to help the ignorant understand…

Mr. President says that this agency will be able to “cut through all of the bureaucratic red tape”. ~wondering if that is what most citizens call the beginning of a dictatorship established through the fears of the death and way of life of the country in which they live~

This Bill is being “sold” to the American public as a need. The U.S. Government is praying on the fears of Americans for their lives and for the lives of their children. Americans are being led to believe that their “freedom” (mind you I’m still looking for mine) is being threatened. The price of this Bill is way to high. The price that Americans will pay for this “security” is immeasurable. It will seep through and leak in every aspect of our lives. Or maybe …it will bring to light to our “freedom”

it's indeed a scary day for americans

Damn... I swear as soon as finish school, I'm gonna leave this stupid country...

End.

I'm not really going to get into all the recent laws and rulings put into place just recently, but it's enough to say we need to be contacting our Representatives and Senators on a regular basis. I used to be in contact with my previous senator's website, via email--and i will make it a point to find the websites of my new senators and let them know how i feel(regardless of their political leanings)
You can also write your local newspaper. I think you'd be surprised how many people feel the same way you do on the important issues and they'll likely print your letter, too.

The problem right now is that our Congress is listening to those who are speaking loudest, while most Americans are content with their TV and video games to be worried about something as important as our right to privacy...all in the name of security, when most Americans' are not really in danger at all (BTW, any senator or representative's website can be found in any search engine).

mrchristian said:

Thanks for the post Drika and thanks for the tip mrchristian.

Distractions, that what entertainment and the pablum of sports are, DISTRACTIONS.

We're being manipulated. Just the other day, in the media, they reported about the FBI warning of something spectacular...most people get freaked out...back up these things...are reminded of what happened...again...to back up these new departments.

WE don't want a stupid color coded, living in fear code or department of Homeland Security...sounds kind of hickey to me too...Hooomluaand Seeecuuuritay. We want the Bush to not stop investigation into Bin Ladens or threats...we want Chaney to show his ass and fess up to corruption, we want the FBI and CIA to communicate better...that is all.

But like most new laws and new organizations or bills, there is always something else they plan to use the new law/bill for.

Very similar to this whole copyright law thing with movie sttudios and record companies going after legislation and making people crooks. It's also about Hi Defenition broadcasting, internet tv and other things they want to own and control. But we're not being told about those things until it's too late...after we've put down our X Boxes and shit.

Yeah, that color coded alert system is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. Does anyone actually give a shit about it?

End.

In retrospect, how much personal freedom would we have been willing to give up that would have allowed the government to thwart the September 11th attacks? During war, some personal rights that we hold dear may have to take a back seat to protect the nation. Anyone who lived through WWII can readily attest to that. Besides, I thought a lot of the current partisan wrangling was over the issue of union protection for workers in the proposed Homeland Security Department.

Some of the past wartime breaches of civil liberties were clearly wrong, in retrospect, and I have enough confidence in our US Constitution and the US Supreme Court to know that my present basic freedoms to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will not be severely infringed while we try to prevent religious and political fanatics from attacking our very existence.

It's fine to exercise your right to free speach and whine about your imagined loss of freedom with the proposed Homeland Security Department. But what rights, if any, are you willing to give up in defense of this country? If the answer is "none," then perhaps those who are looking forward to leaving this "stupid country" should do it now. Good riddance!

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

TheMax said:[quote]In retrospect, how much personal freedom would we have been willing to give up that would have allowed the government to thwart the September 11th attacks? During war, some personal rights that we hold dear may have to take a back seat to protect the nation.


What war are you talking about? The war America has declared against Afghanistan? Iraq? Do you reall think those countries can attack your's, even if they wanted to? Please dont come to me with the "war of terrorism". Thats not a war, my friend. The you should include the "War against poverty" and the "War against Drugs" (why is your country always using military terms to describe situations anyway) into your bill to take freedom away from people.


Anyone who lived through WWII can readily attest to that. Besides, I thought a lot of the current partisan wrangling was over the issue of union protection for workers in the proposed Homeland Security Department.

Some of the past wartime breaches of civil liberties were clearly wrong, in retrospect, and I have enough confidence in our US Constitution and the US Supreme Court to know that my present basic freedoms to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will not be severely infringed while we try to prevent religious and political fanatics from attacking our very existence.


Its the same supreme court that has voted George W Bush into his office although the election polls said he shouldnt. Do you really have faithin it, Max?


It's fine to exercise your right to free speach and whine about your imagined loss of freedom with the proposed Homeland Security Department. But what rights, if any, are you willing to give up in defense of this country? If the answer is "none," then perhaps those who are looking forward to leaving this "stupid country" should do it now. Good riddance![/quote
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 11:39:38 PST 2002 by soulpower]

TheMax said:

I would if I could...

End.
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 11:57:05 PST 2002 by PeterJL121]

TheMax said:

I don’t even know where to start with this one…lol. Perhaps you should have went and researched the bill before you posted on this thread or at least bothered to re-read the post. Then I think you may have realized that all you have said here that you believe in and hold dear is being threatened. You would see that indeed what you value “my present basic freedoms to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is what the Bill is taking away.

You believe that you US constitution and US supreme court will uphold your values. Lets not forget who places into power the Supreme Court Justices. Too, you need to remember that the constitution

Now please ask yourself “What exactly is “severely infringed’, how much infringement is to much infringement and who should decide that for me?” Take note as well, no infringement whatsoever is acceptable if it takes away the basic laws which govern us as Americans if you truly want to use the U.S. constitution as a point, perhaps you should have remembered this as well. When people start to give a little and give a little the end result ends up being things like “Homeland Security”…bills. Did you read the part of the post that says there will be no checks and balances on this agency and that the agency will be run by a President who has decideded that he reject it if it limits his ability in ANY way to run the department? The translation: I am President and I want to run this country the way I want it and I will not sign anything that says I cannot. It is v v scary when you think about an Imperfect man having that much power over so many other people, and having to answer to no one. Who is he to do that? He wasn’t even elected for crying out loud, he stole the Presidency (but I wont continue to go there right now).

As for imagined”… “imagined?”, it is not “imagine” dear …once again… you may want to go and read the Bill before you comment on it. This is really what is happening this is nothing imagined. A copy of the Bill is available for the public to view.

In regards the “war” comment, I wont even go there because I think Soul laid that out for you.

PeterJL121 said:

you are most welcome here where I live. Wondeful democracy, loads of personal freedom, no guns, no shootings, a clever way handling drugs, no fear and no nuthead as president. And they count right at elections. Wide choice of independent media.

By the way. Ive given back my greencard after bush got elected. Proudly.
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:47:00 PST 2002 by ajd]

what they mean by homeland security: is that they are possibly getting off their duffs and doing something they ignored since the early 1980's. Fact; If the United States was ever to be attacked from the inside we would be prisioners before knowing what hit us.Sept 11th was just a warm up and let the others see how easy it would be none of them had guns. No think of this imagine an all out assault.
To many assume that the National Guard can handle it. And just think you thought those Milita guys are insane to arm themselves. They are former military that know what's up.

queen627 said:

No Queen that is not what they mean by “Homeland Security”, what they mean is exactly what the bill states...~why do people continusously try to distort fact that are right in front of their face~ Perhaps you as well should go read the bill. I am baffled as to how someone can be so scared of having their “civil liberties” taken away that they distort meaning of facts that are given to them directly through their government, in order to make themselves feel more secure…~truly wondering if it gets any sadder~


Queen, why do you call the future facts as though you actually can see it. No, that is not a fact…a fact is a true statement and seeing as how you cannot see the future you may want to rethink your facts and instead state a true fact with concrete evidence …opinions are not facts…

Do you honestly think for one second that U.S. cannot defend itself? Please think about it deeply before you respond. As far as the National Guard is concerned, if you think that only the National Guard is being deployed to “defend” their country…then I can help you out and give you figures on the military power that the U.S. has been strategically placing around the world in order that they might have what they desire. See I actually Investigate before I post. But that is okay no big problem I don’t fault you, you are a product of your environment…the U.S. Americans constantly take what the Government, Television and Newspaper feed them and accept it for fact. So for that one I will give you a pass.

Curious…To what militia are you referring? Is it the Americans who decide they no longer want to live by the laws that govern their country (i.e. the Ruby Ridge,Waco). If this is so, then they know just like you do that they could never arm themselves against another country. So then no, that would not be the reason that they arm themselves…But please elaborate this is getting amusing.

Drika, first drop the know-it-all condescension and quasi-constitution scholar bullshit - then we'll chat.

If you're so paranoid about abandoning union protection for federal workers who would have their departments consolidated in the Homeland Security Department, then you need to be reminded that this president, limited as he and his cronies clearly are, is already the Commander In Chief of the United States military, a force capable of ending life on this planet - all of it. And despite our acknowledged military supremacy, the military was not designed to stop the domestic attacks by the terrorists.

I, for one, am not satisfied by the existing lack of inter-agency communication, sharing of intelligence, and cooperation that may have thwarted the September 11th attacks. The Homeland Security concept is a response to this devastating lapse. Do you have a better idea? I doubt it.

May I remind you, there are groups of people who want to ruin this country. They want to kill us and our way of life. I want them stopped. I am willing to make sacrifices. It would be nice to discuss what those sacrifices may have to be. What are you willing to do besides whine? You've done your "research," now spend a moment as a law-abiding citizen informing us about which parts of the Homeland Security bill you find so threatening.

soulpower said:

I'll stand by the phrase "war on terrorism." As hard as it may be to believe, the terrorists have launched several successful attacks - the most severe occurred here, in New York and Washington DC last year. According to our latest intelligence, they are planning to attack again, possibly more savagely.

Will they poison our water, expose us to small pox or anthrax, attack our nuclear power plants? These sorts of attacks may not feel like conventional acts of war to you, but these assholes are into thinking outside of the box. From where I stand, it feels very much like a war - a type of war that we have not previously had to face.

Smart allies will realize that regardless of political party affiliation, regardless of a love or hate for Bush Jr., when attacked as a nation we will collectively and vigorously defend ourselves. You would do the same. To fight this war, as is true for all others, we will make sacrifices. The Homeland Security Department will demand sacrifices of the American people. Citizenship requires it in times of threats to national security. To those who want to live "free" and not be burdened by this, we'll carry you too. Or perhaps they should pay a visit to the magic kingdom of "ajd"

TheMax said:

Quasi-constitution scholar bulllshit…now THAT is funny. It could almost be an oxymoron. Why do you call it this anyway? Is it because the view is so different than yours. Is it because I was stating a point and used v v limited constitutional references. May I remind you that YOU brought the constitution up. I was merely commenting on it. Why is it that you offer to chat with me on the condition that I drop my views? Come now Max, …that is very narrow minded of you. Only chatting with someone if they drop references that apparently you are not comfortable with….sigh

So you are basically stating that because Bush is the Commander in Chief I should support him? Are you crazy? No, I’m not going to support him just because he is in the position he is? Once again, may I remind you how Bush even came about this job. One of the things that continues to bother me is when I hear people say “well he’s the only President we have”. Yes he is, but damn that doesn’t mean I’m going to support him in his terror on this world in order to gain control of oil. YET ANOTHER case of an American taking what is handed to them and accepting it.

Something VERY important here. The bigger person is not made by how many lives they can end, but instead how many they can save. ~beginning to see why Max is a supporter of Bush~

No, the military was not designed to stop domestic terrorist attacks, but neither were they designed to collect toys during the Holidays. Your sentence in this regards seems to be floating in the latter part of the paragraph. Perhaps you may want to elaborate and tie it into the paragraph or start another one. Because it is very unclear as to what your point is with this statement.

You say that you are not satisfied with the existing lack of inter-agency communication. Why would you be satisfied with a lack of communication? Perhaps you meant to say that you were not satisfied “because of” the lack. If this is the case. Let me ask you something. How do you know there was a lack of communication? Because your government and Media outlets spoon feed this to you? Why are you accepting this with out proof?

Please tell me WHO wants to kill our way of life (this should be good)? Kill our way of life? If you want to create pandemonium in the U.S. just tell the citizens that their “freedom” is being threatened and that you as their government are going to protect them. This way you will be able to “protect” them by any means possible. That comment was a very good case in point. Thank you

Whine? Whine? No that is not something I do. Why are you calling my statements whining anyway. I was simply stating a vote that is taking place in the Senate today. This was a very bad attempt at an insult. I know you can do even a little better. At least add a little wit so you don’t look so ignorant…lol

As far as spending a moment informing you which parts of the “Homeland Security” Bill I find so threatening…I have done that. There is very clearly a part of the post that says The two most important facts. Like I said you may actually want to READ the post before commenting on it.

Oh yeah, as for the know-it-all comment. No, I don’t think I know it all, but I do know that I am V V intelligent:wink:

Complicated matters..yes.. each day, they grow...
Lost of civil liberties + citizen spy networks + wars + massive personal changes + controversial UN mattes = one world goverment...ripples revelations.
Sign O' Times

TheMax said:

TheMax said:

Drika said:

True wisdom within these words.

MrChristian
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/


Language inside the Homeland Security bill will allow the federal government to track the e-mail, Internet use, travel, credit-card purchases, phone and bank records of foreigners and U.S. citizens. They say that it is to help search for terrorist.

But the scary part is after the dust settles and we are on to the next big scare, we are left with laws that never get repealed.

Case in Point:

Subject to inspection
Belleville inspectors and armed police officers show up without search warrants to check for occupancy code violations, and ticket people who don't let them in -- a practice experts say is unconstitutional.
BY GEORGE PAWLACZYK
Belleville News-Democrat

and Beth Hundsdorfer

Invite friends over, babysit your grandchildren or allow relatives to spend the night in Belleville and you risk an armed police officer turning up at your door to search your home and give you a ticket.

Enforcement teams consisting of a housing inspector and a police officer do not obtain search warrants before showing up to check for occupancy code violations, a Belleville News-Democrat investigation found.

Most residents give their permission to come in, although reluctantly, and those who don't usually are charged. Sometimes they simply walk in.

Jim Reese said he was standing in his kitchen when he heard a noise at 7 a.m. and found a housing inspector and police officer standing in his living room.

"I wanted to know who walked in without permission," he said. "They didn't answer me. They just started walking through the place."

Such aggressive enforcement of a city law designed to prevent overcrowding violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unlawful search and seizure, legal experts say.

"I think the way they are using the housing ordinance is unconstitutional," said Jamie Carey, a law professor at Loyola University. "I think it's just a way to get around the Fourth Amendment."

"You can't come in without a search warrant," said William Schroeder, a professor and expert in federal law at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. "The Supreme Court decided a case on this that is right on point. It's based on the Fourth Amendment. And you can't arrest anyone for refusing a search without a search warrant."

Belleville attorney Bruce Cook said: "If they suspect you of something, then they can go to a police officer and get an affidavit and then get a search warrant. Your home is protected by the Fourth Amendment."

In more than 30 interviews, residents said officials show up without warrants and ticket people, sometimes for just having visitors. While many times the tickets were justified because of significant overcrowding, others were given for everyday events.

A young mother who works two jobs was ticketed because the elderly couple she hired to babysit were not listed on her occupancy permit. A man who agreed to house sit for a friend in the Air Force who was overseas was cited when he was found alone in the house.

In 70 percent of cases, documented in city records since 1999, housing inspectors, called compliance officers, and uniformed police offcers have gone into homes in the city's poorest areas -- around Hough Park, in the Franklin neighborhood and near downtown.

Ninety-five percent of these surprise inspections were at rental housing.

City officials say enforcement of occupancy and housing codes is crucial to prevent overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, and to keep the city's housing stock from deteriorating.

But civil rights experts argue such tactics are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

"It's pretty much like the Gestapo. There is no right to privacy," said Will Jordan, executive director of the Equal Housing Opportunity Council in St. Louis, which works with the federal government to investigate civil rights violations.

"This is much more intrusive than making a random stop on the highway because this is your home," he said.

The findings

None of Illinois' 15 largest cities, including Chicago, sends police officers on housing inspections, according to a survey by the newspaper. In fact, none require occupancy permits.

The searches usually are based on anonymous calls and often come during the early morning hours, according to a review of 263 Belleville Housing Department occupancy violation case files since 1999.

The newspaper found:

• At least four times, the police-compliance officer teams have been accused of simply walking into houses unannounced without knocking first.

• A dozen times when people refused to let the officials in without first seeing a warrant, they were charged with obstruction or interfering with a health officer, despite a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to arrest someone who doesn't allow a search without a warrant.

• Fifty-seven percent of those cited for occupancy code violations were white, while 43 percent were black. Belleville's black population is 15.5 percent, according to the 2000 Census.

• The Police Department has taken advantage of the housing inspections, the records show. In at least 10 cases, the housing inspections gave police an easy way into homes to search for drugs.

"This is a problem one sees all across the country -- the use of these housing codes for doing what really amounts to drug sweeps," said Ed Yohnka of the American Civil Liberties Union

• People cited with an occupancy violation are compelled to give the police officer personal data that is entered into the Belleville Police Department computer base and used for routine criminal investigations.

The personal information includes race, marital status, birthdates, home and work telephone numbers, criminal history and even a description of scars and tattoos. Crystal Wilson, 25, was asked to describe a Caesarean scar on her abdomen during an occupancy inspection on Nov. 14, 2000, according to an arrest report.

The permits also record the relationship of each person living in a residence to the head of the household. Even an unwed couple who want to live together discretely must state their relationship on a public document.

"What is the public policy served by knowing specifically who lives where?" said Todd Swanstrom, a sociologist at St. Louis University.

• Of the 584 people charged altogether, 164 were cited for "allowing illegal occupancy," or having too many people living in a house or apartment. Most of the remaining 420 were charged with living in a residence where they weren't listed on the occupancy permit. A dozen or more were held on other charges, such as outstanding warrants.

Mary Jones-Joyner, 55, of 132 Lauren Circle was babysitting her grandchildren when Sgt. Joe Stumph came to her door at 7:10 a.m. May 31, 2000, and handed her an already completed occupancy violation citation because the children were not listed on her occupancy permit.

"I told him my grandkids don't live with me. I asked, 'What is it you're going to charge me with?"

When Jones-Joyner appeared in St. Clair County Circuit Court with a copy of her daughter's lease showing the children lived with their mother, a judge dismissed the case.

"I had to take time off from work for this crazy stuff," she said.

• In 190 cases, homes that had children age 16 and younger were searched. In one case, six family members were issued citations.

Chandra Miller, 29, was ticketed Jan. 25 for allowing her estranged husband to sleep on her living room floor when their daughter was ill. Tyrone Miller, 30, also was cited, even though he showed the enforcement team a driver's license listing his address in Cahokia.

"I want to know when it became illegal to have someone sleep on your living room floor?" she said.

Jordan said the fact families are involved is significant.

"If they're going after women and children, this is a situation where the Justice Department will come in and make them stop," he said.

John Farley, head of the Sociology Department at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, said the unannounced inspections occurring almost exclusively at rental housing also is a concern.

"It sounds like they're trying to keep out lower-income people," he said. "It sounds like this is a case of keep the renters out and send them somewhere else."

The 'overcrowding police'

Henry Johnson said he was fired because he refused to go along with what he called discriminatory practices in enforcing the municipal housing code.

Johnson, 51, was hired in 1993 by the housing department after a U.S. Justice Department investigation into Belleville's failure to hire minorities. He was one of the city's first black employees.

Johnson said that after Mayor Mark Kern took office in 1997, a series of "disturbing" strategy sessions took place in the housing department.

"At one of these meetings, Stumph, the police sergeant, advised that residents who balked at allowing a search without a search warrant should be threatened with arrest," said Johnson, who now lives in Fairview Heights.

"Joe would say that when a person wouldn't let us in, we should say, 'You mean you're not going to let that inspector do his job? Do I have to arrest you for obstructing?'" Johnson said.

Stumph did not respond to requests to comment.

"I wouldn't go along with this kind of thing, and finally I was cut out of the meetings," Johnson said, "I was finally told I wasn't to supervise anybody."

Six months after he was fired, the city settled a civil rights lawsuit Johnson had filed in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis for an undisclosed amount.

Kern declined to be interviewed for this story but issued a written statement: "Enforcement of occupancy permit regulations is important to our residents, and we have strived to enforce these rules."

In his statement, Kern insisted city inspectors do not enter people's property without permission.

But Reese said compliance officer Robert Craig and police Sgt. Don Sax entered his apartment at 3419 W. Main St., at 7 a.m. on May 20 without knocking.

"They told me that I had to get out right away, the next day," said Reese, a 55-year-old former Air Force enlisted man who was ticketed for not having an occupancy permit. "I said I needed time to move but they told me, "Didn't you hear? You've got to leave."

In another case, James R. Burnette of 611 E. McKinley awoke on May 6 to find a Belleville Police officer and a housing inspector standing over his bed.

"We found the residence open and upon further inspection, Burnette was found inside sleeping," the inspection report stated.

Belleville Housing Director Mike Eckert declined to be interviewed, but he said, "Our department never forces its way into anyone's homes." He said the purpose of the city's occupancy law is to prevent "dangerous overcrowding."

In one case, 12 people were found living illegally in a residence at 516 W. C St. that was supposed to have only four. They included six children 12 or under.

That presents problems for schools as well as the city.

"Taxpayers in this district do not want to be paying taxes to support children who do not actually live in this district," said James Rosborg, superintendent of Belleville School District 118.

"We strongly support the Belleville housing code. We want people to come into the district. We're not against that. But we want them to legally reside here," Rosborg said.

Many who were ticketed said they were friends or relatives who were visiting. They included 49 school-aged teenagers, two as young as 15.

"The problem is that people say they are just visiting, but 30 days becomes 60 days, which becomes 90 or six months or a year," said Louis Tiemann, a strong supporter of municipal housing codes who helped draft the city's current code in the late 1980s. "How do you police that? It's very difficult."

The city's housing code does not define "occupy." A housing department employee said that a visitor usually can stay "a week, or a week and a half" before the occupancy permit must be changed.

Most of the residents interviewed said they allowed the searches because they felt intimidated or feared being issued a criminal citation.

They complained that police would ticket anyone who happened to be in the house when they showed up to check for overcrowding, refusing to listen to their explanations.

"Whoever heard of the overcrowding police?" Reese said.

Rick Brown, an activist for mobile home-dwellers and a frequent critic of the city's housing policies, said, "You no longer have to register a dog or cat in Belleville, but when my nephew comes to visit, I've got to register him with housing."

A change in strategy

Soon after taking office, Kern changed the way the city enforces its housing code.

Mike Pierceall, the former city planning director under Mayor Roger Cook, said police did not escort housing inspectors except in rare cases involving repeat offenders.

Police Chief Terry Delaney refused to answer questions but said in a written statement it is necessary to send a police officer out on a housing inspection to issue a criminal citation, and for "the security of the housing officer."

"Neighbors call us all the time. When we go into the area around Memorial Drive, it's terrible. They (youths) stand in the street and defy us to run into them," he said earlier.

Pierceall said that under the Cook administration, a housing code violator received a certified letter with a warning that unless the problem was remedied, a citation and a fine would follow. Permits listed only the head of household and the maximum number of people allowed to live there.

Using the certified letter approach, Belleville brought just three people to court in 1996 for housing violations. In 1997, during Kern's first year in office, housing court cases jumped to 222.

Last year, 521 people were given criminal citations stemming from housing complaints, including 143 people cited for occupancy violations.

"I think it's just a difference of philosophy in handling matters," said Pierceall. "Our way was to not force the issue. It worked pretty well. But Belleville's got some very serious housing issues. Maybe the way they're doing it now is overzealous, I don't know."

Alderman Bob Blaies said he thought certified letters still were being sent out.

"We need to keep people in line with the housing code, but if it's violating anybody's rights, we need to take a look at it," Blaies said.

Alderman Paul Seibert said he approves of using police officers to enforce the housing codes.

"You can send a letter to anybody, that doesn't mean they obey," he said.

Asked whether people cited for a housing violation should be required to provide the same personal information as someone charged with a crime, Seibert said, "I don't believe they do that."

Court records show most people end up paying a fine of $75 to $100 for housing ordinance violations rather than go to trial.

Ordinance violations are similar to traffic tickets, and a conviction goes on a person's criminal record. Failure to show up in court to answer them can result in a bench warrant being issued with bail set for up to $2,000.

"Unfortunately, under the law, the poor are not a protected class," said Carl Carlson, a staff attorney for Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation in East St. Louis, which provides legal services to low-income people.

"You can discriminate against them and prosecute them and they don't have much legal recourse," he said.

City vs. the Constitution

Belleville's current housing codes, which require mandatory inspections and a $25 occupancy permit, were adopted in 1988, but language was added in 1997 that allows inspectors to enter a home without a resident's or a court's permission.

Chapter 18 reads, in part, "With reference to any health nuisance or any housing or maintenance code violation, the director shall have the power to enter and examine any property for the purpose of enforcement ... " and this authority extends to "one-half mile outside the city limits."

Eckert said the language was adopted from the Building Officials and Code Administrators, or BOCA, a Chicago-based, nonprofit organization that has compiled a model housing and building code used by thousands of communities nationwide.

But Tom Frost, a BOCA vice president, said the group's code does not state that local officials can force a search without a search warrant.

"Forced searches are unconstitutional," Frost said. "You need a search warrant."

The city also can declare a residence unfit to live in and force people to move out if the utilities are temporarily shut off, Eckert said. The BOCA code does not call for this.

City Attorney Bob Sprague said in a written statement he sees no problem with having a rule that says housing inspectors can search homes without a warrant.

"I see no conflict between Chapter 18 (of the city code) and the Fourth Amendment," Sprague said, adding, "As the mayor has already informed you, the city does not enter a premises without permission."

However, refusing to allow a search without first seeing a search warrant is every citizen's right, according to a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Camara vs. San Francisco.

In that case, the court said a warrant is needed for housing inspectors to enter a home, and that a person cannot be charged with a crime for refusing to allow his home to be entered without a search warrant. The only exception is when an emergency, such as a fire or gas leak, is thought to exist.

Even so, local laws to the contrary usually aren't struck down until someone challenges them, said Schroeder, the SIUC law professor.

"You do need a test case to go forward with these things. Local municipalities pass these laws all the time, and they are allowed to stand because no one challenges them," he said.

Belleville has been under the scrutiny of the U.S. Justice Department since signing a consent decree in 1995 and agreeing to end its discriminatory hiring practices.

If Belleville is performing improper searches aimed at low-income people, the Justice Department would be interested, spokesman Casey Stavropolous said.

"We would certainly be interested in any civil rights complaints apart from the employment consent decree," he said. "They would be investigated."

Brown, the mobile home activist, said he understands the need to enforce the housing codes, he just disagrees with sending a gun-toting police officer to do it.

"It's like when you get stopped by a cop, you say 'yes, sir' even though you haven't said that since you were in trouble with your dad when you were in high school," he said. "When police show up, people will agree to just about anything."