In my neck of the woods, zoning violations are handle in a much more subdued manner! 
-- Modified on 8/16/2013 12:39:54 PM
According to your own linked article, this type of over the top, jack booted police behavior seems to be happening everywhere, not just Texas.
So if your intention was simply to make Texas look bad, with Big Back Stabber type tactics, I would suggest you retread your own linked article.
If OTOH you are trying to point out the over the top behavior of police departments everywhere, then I agree with you completely
I'm a small business owner, and many of my friends are business owners in the same city. None of us have heard of SWAT being called out for zoning issues. And, I was focusing solely on the zoning issues, even though, I can't recall hearing or reading about SWAT being called out for any issue, in our city. Now, travel a few miles to L.A., that's a different story, and yet I still have not heard of them being called out for zoning issues!
they are going to try to force us to eat what they produce. they do not want us self-sustaining or healthy
They have been behind much of the war against organic farmers in the last 15 years.
The passing of H.R. 2751 Senate Amendment—Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010 means the following-
* The U.S. government can decide what seed is safe, allowing them to dictate what type of seed a farmer is allowed to use. Taken a step further, any seed deemed unsafe will no longer be available to home gardeners, and the right to dry and store such seeds can be made illegal.
* The Bill gives the FDA the power to impose quarantines on specific geographic areas and stop the movement of all food in an area where a contamination has been identified. It also gives the FDA the power to conduct warrantless searches of food producers; even without evidence any law has been broken.
* United States food production facilities will be required to register with the U.S. government. No food will be allowed to be grown, distributed or sold outside this bureaucratic framework unless the FDA allows it. Food distributed or sold outside of U.S. government control under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act will be considered illegal smuggling.
* Already put into effect are fees and paperwork requirements (with fines of up to $500,000 for paperwork infractions, even for a first offense) that could prove to be an inhalation for small food producers and organic farms. These requirements raise the cost of food to the consumer.
* The new Bill means increased inspections of food processing facilities of all sizes. It will increase the size and reach of the FDA as they gear up to hire an army of new FDA inspectors and open offices across the U.S. to inspect and enforce any and all food distributed outside U.S. government control that will be deemed illegal smuggling.
* The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act places all U.S. food and farms under the Department of Homeland Security in the event of a contamination or an emergency.What will be deemed an emergency or contamination and what measures will be taken is not clearly stated in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and we will not know the full effects of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act until it is upon us.
* The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act gives the FDA the power to regulate how crops are grown and how food is produced in the United States. If exercised to the Bill’s full potential small farmers and organic farmers could be forced to farm how the government tells them to. Should they decide organic farming methods are unsafe, the FDA has the clout to outlaw them.
http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr2571senateamedment
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Safety_and_Modernization_Ac
Hookerwhoneedstopledgeallegeiancetothe flagbeforesheposts
The FSM allows only FDA inspection of food producers RECORDS – not the family farm - and then only if the FDA believes that there is a reasonable probability the producer has food that will cause serious adverse health consequences.
And the inspection can only be done upon written notice to the produce at a reasonable time. (Of course following 9/11 Congress enacted a bioterroism statute that did allow for greater warrantless instrusions where bioterrroisms was suspected if I remember correctly)
So no SWAT team is going to be kicking in your door at 4 am to inspect those brownies you make that everyone likes so much. If they want to do that, they have to get a warrant, although I believe you have already admitted that your bathroom is a safety hazard.
This is the first really major change to food safety law since 1938 and is long overdue
"and officers shielded their name tags so they couldn't be identified" during a police action that included aerial surveillance, a SWAT team, and a 10-hour search. That is the account given by Arlington, Texas organic farm owner, Shellie Smith.
http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/aug-16-texas-police-hit-organic-farm-massive-swat-raid-1964959/
Multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid on Rawesome Foods.
Owner, James Stewart, arrested- warrant provided later in the day.
http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/08/armed-swat-style-raid-hits-rawesome-foods-healthy-family-farms-for-selling-raw-milk-and-cheese/#.Ug80VLt5tQQ
Feds illegally raid New Mexico farm school without warrant and find nothing but fresh produce
http://www.naturalnews.com/030573_marijuana_raids.html
You're JOKING about 4 or 5 AM farm raids, right?!
Two FDA agents, two US Marshals, and one state trooper raid Rainbow Acres (Pennsylvania) at 5 am, breaking their warrant’s restrictions instructing an inspection at “reasonable business hours.” Agents scour the premises for hours and charge the farm with illegally selling raw milk across state lines.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/aa/aa-26april2010.htm
-- Modified on 8/17/2013 4:16:03 AM
What happened to your random warrantless searches under the Food Safety Modernization Act, Hookerwhohasbeenreadingtoomanyofmein'sposts??
Leaving aside that none of these raids were conducted pursuant to the FSMA, all the searches in your examples WERE MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT. DUH. As requiuredi by the Constitution.
The sole exception was the "illegal" raid of the farm school. But you somehow missed one tiny fact in the fine print- the owner CONSENTED to the search without a warrant. So there was noting illegal as far as the search was concerned, was there?
When the police say "may we come in?" and you say "sure" there is no Fourth Amendment violation, only a slighlly clueless hooker.
That was clearly a mistake on my part!
"THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SEARCHES CAN BE PERFORMED WITHOUT A COURT ORDERED SEARCH WARRANT
These are called warrantless searches and it's the most common type of search conducted by law enforcement.
The vital word in determining a warrantless search: Reasonable. It will be up to the court in many instances to determine if the warrantless search was reasonable. Really, this boils down to the court agreeing that law enforcement's judgment to search was based on logical criminal suspicion.
WHEN CAN WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BE PERFORMED?
- Consenting to searches
If you voluntarily allow police to search your home or car, this is called a consent search. This validates a search and, as a result, turns anything law enforcement finds into admissible evidence. Officers also do not have to tell people that they can decline thus granting law enforcement, without a warrant, the right to search the home.
One of the keys here is determining who has the right to consent to the search. If roommates live in a home, courts may say that the consent of a person to search the home does not apply to the personal areas of another in the same place. If there are separate bedrooms for instance, police could only search the one used the by the person who consented to the search.
Landlords and hotel managers cannot allow searches of leased areas. Company owners can consent to a search of the company, which can include work areas. But this search is limited from personal employee areas like a locker.
It will be up to prosecutors to prove consent was given in the proper manner.
- The plain view doctrine
Just as it sounds. If a law enforcement officer can see evidence of criminal activity prior to entering or an initial search, then the officer is within their rights to enter without a search warrant. If an officer sees a weapon from a legal vantage point, he's allowed to proceed with a search. This is applicable to homes or cars.
The officer can't alter a normal vantage point to see possible contraband. The discovery of the evidence also needs to be unintentional. So, officers can't scale a tree to see in a window. They also need to come across evidence while already in a legal position outside or inside the home.
- Incidental search
Police are allowed to search only the person arrested and the area where that person could acquire a weapon or could hide or destroy evidence following an arrest. And this search needs to happen during or immediately after arrest.
This allows the search to be consider "reasonable,” because it is related to the arrest. Officers are allowed to use these searches as self-protection or to preserve evidence in connection with an arrest.
- Emergency exception
In other instances, warrantless searches are allowed in extreme circumstances. If the police feel someone's safety is at risk or criminal activity is occurring, and obtaining a warrant would increase those things, they can enter a home or vehicle and perform a search. According to a law.com article, police received a 911 call about screaming in a New Jersey home. When they arrived, a man and his girlfriend said the noise was a result of sex. The officers asked the man for identification, which he went upstairs to retrieve. The officers went with him and saw loose marijuana and bagged marijuana. There were also marijuana plants in the house. All of this was discovered because of a combination of factors in warrantless searches. From the plain view Doctrine to entering the house to do a welfare check, police made an arrest without a warrant that stood up in court. If someone is perceived to be in danger or police feel criminal activity is going on, they can enter using the emergency exception.
- Searches of cars and their occupants
A recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court has curtailed law enforcement's ability to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle. If a person is cited for a traffic violation then detained in the back of a police car and poses no threat, police are not allowed to search the vehicle. Previously, warrantless car searches were allowed immediately following any arrest.
Warrantless searches can still happen if the passenger compartment was within reach of someone removed from the vehicle or if law enforcement thinks there is evidence in there. If a suspect had access to the vehicle during the time of the arrest, that also allows officers the right to check the vehicle.
WHAT TO DO?
Since warrantless searches are allowed in certain circumstances, people are almost always better off staying out of the way but making it clear they do not consent to the search. Remember, once in court the search will have to prove legal in order for evidence to be admissible at trial. Promptly contacting your attorney in any warrantless search situation is recommended.
the very statute which led to this discussion-your erroneous assertion that the Food Safety Modernization Act “ gives the FDA the power to conduct warrantless searches of food producers; even without evidence any law has been broken.”
That one is not in there, is it? The FSMA simply does not do that at all-at most it gives the FDA the power to make inspections of food producer records at reasonable times – hence, no kicking in your door in middle of the night by the FDA for a facility search.
Now tell me- do you really have a problem with the FDA inspecting food producer records like this?
And btw your summary does not provide the “legal definition of a warrantless search”; rather it lists exceptions where a warrantless search is legal. But these exceptions are created by the common law, not the Food Safety Modernization Act.
This discussion demonstrates the danger of copying from internet sources without actually reading the law. Here someone erroneously wrote that the Food Safety Modernization Act permitted “random warrantless searches of records” and this was repeated by many others including yourself until the “of records” limitations was omitted.
No knock on you by the way. The P & R Board is for posting just as you did- we don't require any greater level of research. When I rely on a secondary source without confirming it, I usually say "according to this source.
"Obama food safety chief and former Monsanto lawyer, Michael R. Taylor, today defended the FDA’s sting operations and armed raids against raw milk producers."
"The FDA is in the midst of writing the critical regulations that will implement the Food Safety Modernization Act
Congress passed last year with applause all around from the Obama administration, Democrats and Republicans despite ferocious opposition from small-farm advocates. The sweeping new law gives the agency extraordinary powers to detain foods on farms. It also denies farmers recourse to federal courts."
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/06/07/food-safety-chief-defends-raw-milk-raids/
I just read it as some neighbors, with their nose out of joint, because they thought their hippy-dippy neighbors were lowering the value of their property, made unsubstantiated claims that their hippy-dippy neighbors were growing pot. That was the first part. The second part had to do with how the police department responded; definitely overkill. As long as local police department are going to get federal money to buy all these new toys, that's what they'll do, and they'll find some way to implement their use, even though it may not justified, as in this case and the case you cited below. It's much like someone training in the martial arts. Once you've learn a new technique, and you've been practicing for a long time, sooner or later you get tired of practicing it, and look for opportunities to use it in real fighting circumstances. It's just human nature.
They used aerial surveillance tactics to attain images of the fawn!
Watch video of local news station reporting and interviewing the shelter workers-
There is protests against Mosanto all over the developing world in Africa, and Asia where, Monsanto wants to replace famers making their own seeds with Monsanto seeds which a farmer has to buy year after year.
Raging controversy on their genetically engineered seeds.
I pointed this out in another post on this thread, but it bears repeating. It also harkens back to my comment in another thread about America being a plutocracy.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dump_monsanto_mike/
You're Appointing "Who"? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/243810