Misdemeanors are not criminal matters, and search and seizure provisions were intended by the founders to only apply to criminal felony matters. I hope she they are suing the individual sheriff and officers involved in this personally – since they, too, are bound by the Constitution of both the federal and state governments – and are not to blindly enforce laws that are blatantly unconstitutional on their face. And any law having to do with citizens arrangements with respect to food sources and their storage or sale as private transactions – if they are not making profits in any manner whatsoever as a “business,” which it doesn’t appear they were is not within their Constituional authority.

The state’s redress and authority was over the Co-Op, not the citizens. Since it is in no way a matter of endangering any other people’s lives or property, and there was no “loss” or injury, or damage to anyone’s else’s property.

This stuff is getting more and more unbelievable, and I’m beginning such actions as these are becoming more and more frequent due to that federal statute that provides for legal fees for “civil rights” violations – and are being purposely done in order to feed both the state budgets and coffers, and also the legal profession at this point.

Even assuming that the search was legally permissible, I am thinking of that commercial that goes, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” This is especially true as police will always err on the side of force and safety when executing a search warrant as enough of them have been killed and injured when they have done otherwise. Now, after the fact, we know there was never any danger. Before they went in, the police could not be so sure.

Meanwhile, there were other methods of conducting the investigation. Witnesses could be interviewed, documents could be obtained by subpeona, etc…

The state chose a tool to use, and it worked just like that tool is supposed to work. Perhaps they should have chosen a different tool.

Bridgette Hobbs

What I understand about the legal case does revolve around your question of what authority did bureaucratic agents have for obtaining this search warrant.

However, the attention we pay to the police is also relevent policy-wise. Seeing the ‘literal’ police power at work in a questionable situation draws attention to the philosphical issue of the danger inherent in the police power granted to the state by the people, and how citizens need to be vigilant in addressing its potential abuses.

What is unusual in this case is that there was a search warrant at all, given that the crime being investigated is a third degree misdemeanor. Crimes of this level are typically investigated using other techniques.

I have heard of search warrants being used for certain first degree misdemeanors, usually liquor and gambling violations. Not that I am the authoritative source on this, but I cannot recall ever hearing about a search warrant for a third degree misdemeanor (or lower) until this.

I have a hard time blaming the police for doing what police do at a search warrant. It seems as though no one was physically restrained, no one was injured, and the warrant was successfully executed.

I think the better question is: Why the choice of a search warrant?