Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 4)

This story continues to grow more interesting.  We have heard that certain Gloucester officials are running damage control.  Here is the latest information heard.  It is being said that the owners of the car pictured above were paged in Wal Mart.  Well we can tell you that we have witnesses that say no page was ever announced in the store during this situation.  The entire event was witnessed from beginning to end and at every level.  It is also being said as we have heard it, that Ms Dickie was trying to be nice to the dog in the vehicle.  Witnesses say that she was causing the dog to get upset.  She was trying to throw in dog biscuits through the windows of the vehicle to the dog, but the dog kept getting upset with her presence and barking at her for invading it's space.

  (Read part one of this story again and you can see where they got the argument about paging the owners of the vehicle and dog from anyway).  

  Now as we have been saying, this to us is an illegal search and seizure operation.  Here is what state code says about this.

§ 3.2-6564. Complaint of suspected violation; investigation.

A. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of this chapter, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this chapter or any law for the protection of domestic animals, any animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of any law or ordinance regarding care or treatment of animals or disposal of dead animals, any humane investigator may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment.

Upon obtaining a warrant as provided for in § 3.2-6568, the law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, State Veterinarian's representative, or humane investigator may enter upon any other premises where the animal or animals described in the complaint are housed or kept. Attorneys for the Commonwealth and law-enforcement officials shall provide such assistance as may be required in the conduct of such investigations.

B. If the investigation discloses that a violation of § 3.2-6503 has occurred, the investigating official shall notify the owner or custodian of the complaint and of what action is necessary to comply with this chapter.

  

Upon "OBTAINING" a warrant.  A Warrant.  There was no warrant in the above situation.

Here is Gloucester County Animal Control Ordinance once again.

3-18

Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles.

(a)

It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b)

Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c)

In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required byChapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

If you look up a violation to 3.2-6503, it states that the violation is only a class 4 misdemeanor.  Why did Gloucester make this a class 1 misdemeanor?  Way to many questions.  Ethics from the county?  ZERO!  

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC03020000065000000000000

The above link is to the Virginia State Code regarding animals.  We can not find anything in there that gives Gloucester County the right to violate everyone's rights here at all.  If someone can show us where they can, please, by all means do so.  Also, Virginia is a Dillon Rule state.  

 http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-04-28/news/dp-nws-cns-dillon-rule-20120427_1_dillon-rule-state-budget-local-governments

Here is a link to the Dillon Rule and how it affects every locality in the state and this article comes from the Daily Press.

Your 4th Amendment Rights;

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.

The above is the law of the land, like it or not.  If your a socialist, move out of the country and infringe on someone else's rights.

The above sign can be found in the following locations.  Tractor Supply, Dollar Tree, and Wal Mart.  Complain about these signs to the store managers and ask that they take them down as they violate your rights.  If they refuse, then refuse to shop in those stores and tell them so.  Anyone think those signs are worth your business?

Complain to the board of supervisors.  Here is their email address.

BoS@Gloucesterva.info 

You can just click on that link above and it will open your email account allowing you to send a quick message to them.  If you are not willing to argue for your rights and freedoms then you deserve neither.

Also, we will point out once again that Laura Dickie was overheard telling the people who had the rented vehicle that she was just about to break the window and take the dog even though the temperature was below 80 degrees as we have already shown in our first post on this issue.  Who is next?  Maybe you?

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 3)
• Gloucester, VA Local Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 1)
• Gloucester, VA Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 2)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?

The Right To Privacy? Double Talk Violations Exist Everywhere

From Our Bill of Rights;  Fourth 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.

We are told that Facebook and cloud computing and storage are not areas where expectations of privacy are found.  Yet, these sites all have privacy policies and you have to set up accounts to use them.  We are told that we are moving to a paperless society.  If electronic editions are the new paper, then why is it that the fourth amendment is not covering these new areas?  

  Are our leaders double talking us?  We are told that if we are in public, we need to have some form of identification.  According to the fourth amendment we do not.  It does not state that we need to be insecure in our persons, nor papers nor effects.  What constitutes a reasonable search of anyone on the streets?

  If privacy is not to be expected on the Internet, then why is hacking considered illegal?  All hackers are doing is gaining access to information that we are told is not private.  Or is it?  Is it that privacy only exists for governments and corporations?  People however are open to inspection at any time?

  How are we expected to understand what is expected of us unless we are no longer allowed to think and must be told what to think?  Or is this where we presently are and with a future that is much darker and grimmer for the mass population?

  If the government has the right to track you through your cell phone, then why don't you have the right to hack your cell phone for free usage?  

  Isn't a cell phone a personal effect or is it public property if it's a tracking device?  

  Why do websites have privacy policies yet put tracking cookies on your computer without your knowledge?

  Are copyrights and trademarks privacy policies?  

  If you can not enter a house without a search warrant, then how can you search a person without a search warrant on the streets or in their vehicles?

  The questions can forever be put out.  The main point is the double talk we are hit with daily.  One must watch with a careful eye all the double talking going on that violates our rights everyday and fight back against it.

Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review" target="_blank">Right To Privacy Harvard Law Review from Chuck Thompson

Here is an historical view on the right to privacy from the Harvard Law Review dated 1891.  So this document is over 100 years old and looks at this American right.

Related articles

• Restore the Fourth: Secure Your Privacy with 4GBs Free(dom)
• Metadata, the NSA, and the Fourth Amendment: A Constitutional Analysis of Collecting and Querying Call Records Databases
• Geo-Location Data. What They Know And Collect About You Via Your Mobile Devices
• New Maine law prohibits law enforcement from tracking cell phones
• New Hi-Tech Police Surveillance: The "StingRay" Cell Phone Spying Device
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

Citizens of Gloucester, VA Calling For Immediate Termination of Circuit Court Clerk (Judge) Gloria Owens For Legal Violations

Citizens of Gloucester, Virginia are calling for the immediate termination of circuit court clerk, Gloria Owens for violations to the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution, article 1 section 10, General Warrants of Search or Seizure Prohibited:  That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted. http://law.justia.com/constitution/virginia/constitution.html#1S10  This is a link to the site where the Commonwealth of Virginia Code is located.  And violations to 19.2-56 as well as the possibility of impersonating a judge on a legal document.

That the above Search Warrant written by one Gloria Owens is in direct violation of the above Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional law as a request for the search and or seizure of any and all animals had no founding basis and is a direct violation of said above Virginia law.  That said 3rd party complaint did not justify such a wide open search and or inspection hence rendering said warrant null and void and in violation of both the State of Virginia Constitution and the Federal Constitution regarding Search Warrants as well as a direct violation to Virginia law 19.2-56.  And as one can see above, Gloria Owens marked the box under her signature as a judge which she is not, giving the appearance that she mis-represented herself on this legal document.

                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                           

§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals

When a sworn complaint is made to any proper authority by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such authority, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff or police officer, to search the building or place.

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                            

That upon any state representative and or law enforcement investigator whom views the above warrant in it's entirety will find that a third party complaint, that was not reliable under the terms of unconstitutional searches, was a first complaint that would only cause an investigation under 3.2-6568.  That the above 3rd party complaint was for pets inside the owners main dwelling as evidenced by Gloucester County's own records and attached to this Warrant.

That said Search Warrant can not be written and commanded by just a court clerk and requires the authorization of either a Magistrate or a Judge.  That the above Search Warrant in our opinion was written without said required authorization.  That said Search Warrant violated the evidence of facts.  That Gloria Owens signed and marked herself as a Judge in a false manor and did not add the required, "on behalf of", statement.

A freedom of information request is being pursued to determine if in fact one Gloria Owens acted on her own or if either a magistrate and or judge was contacted,where and or that permitted this violation, where further requests for termination will be called for against said person(s).  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-56 To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer

§ 19.2-56. To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

The judge, magistrate or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants, shall issue a search warrant if he finds from the facts or circumstances recited in the affidavit that there is probable cause for the issuance thereof.

Every search warrant shall be directed to (i) the sheriff, sergeant, or any policeman of the county, city or town in which the place to be searched is located, (ii) any law-enforcement officer or agent employed by the Commonwealth and vested with the powers of sheriffs and police, or (iii) jointly to any such sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent and an agent, special agent or officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Treasury, the United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the United States Department of Homeland Security, any inspector, law-enforcement official or police personnel of the United States Postal Inspection Service, or the Drug Enforcement Administration. The warrant shall (i) name the affiant, (ii) recite the offense in relation to which the search is to be made, (iii) name or describe the place to be searched, (iv) describe the property or person to be searched for, and (v) recite that the magistrate has found probable cause to believe that the property or person constitutes evidence of a crime (identified in the warrant) or tends to show that a person (named or described therein) has committed or is committing a crime.

The warrant shall command that the place be forthwith searched, either in day or night, and that the objects or persons described in the warrant, if found there, be seized. An inventory shall be produced before a court having jurisdiction of the offense in relation to which the warrant was issued as provided in § 19.2-57.

Any such warrant as provided in this section shall be executed by the policeman or other law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it shall come or be delivered. If the warrant is directed jointly to a sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent of the Commonwealth and a federal agent or officer as otherwise provided in this section, the warrant may be executed jointly or by the policeman, law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it is delivered. No other person may be permitted to be present during or participate in the execution of a warrant to search a place except (i) the owners and occupants of the place to be searched when permitted to be present by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search and (ii) persons designated by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search to assist or provide expertise in the conduct of the search.

Every search warrant shall contain the date and time it was issued. However, the failure of any such search warrant to contain the date and time it was issued shall not render the warrant void, provided that the date and time of issuing of said warrant is established by competent evidence.

The judge, magistrate, or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants shall attach a copy of the affidavit required by § 19.2-54, which shall become a part of the search warrant and served therewith. However, this provision shall not be applicable in any case in which the affidavit is made by means of a voice or videotape recording or where the affidavit has been sealed pursuant to § 19.2-54.

Any search warrant not executed within 15 days after issuance thereof shall be returned to, and voided by, the officer who issued such search warrant.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-86; 1960, c. 366; 1968, c. 572; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 289; 1979, c. 584; 1980, c. 573; 1981, c. 559; 1984, cc. 491, 598; 1988, c. 50; 1989, c. 719; 2000, c. 783; 2001, cc. 183, 205; 2007, c. 416.)

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                             

That the above Virginia law has been violated and upon a previous freedom of information request, Gloucester County officials failed to provide proof and or evidence of the date and time of issuance of the above Search Warrant.  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-54 Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer

§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...
No search warrant shall be issued until there is filed with the officer authorized to issue the same an affidavit of some person reasonably describing the place, thing, or person to be searched, the things or persons to be searched for thereunder, alleging briefly material facts, constituting the probable cause for the issuance of such warrant and alleging substantially the offense in relation to which such search is to be made and that the object, thing, or person searched for constitutes evidence of the commission of such offense. The affidavit may be filed by electronically transmitted facsimile process. Such affidavit shall be certified by the officer who issues such warrant and delivered in person, mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by electronically transmitted facsimile process by such officer or his designee or agent to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city wherein the search is made, with a copy of the affidavit also being delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city where the warrant is issued, if in a different county or city, within seven days after the issuance of such warrant and shall by such clerks be preserved as a record and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public; however such affidavit may be temporarily sealed by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing. Any individual arrested and claiming to be aggrieved by such search and seizure or any person who claims to be entitled to lawful possession of such property seized may move the appropriate court for the unsealing of such affidavit, and the burden of proof with respect to continued sealing shall be upon the Commonwealth. Each such clerk shall maintain an index of all such affidavits filed in his office in order to facilitate inspection. No such warrant shall be issued on an affidavit omitting such essentials, and no general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage shall be issued.

The term "affidavit" as used in this section, means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim.

Failure of the officer issuing such warrant to file the required affidavit shall not invalidate any search made under the warrant unless such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days. If the affidavit is filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, nevertheless, evidence obtained in any such search shall not be admissible until a reasonable time after the filing of the required affidavit.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-85; 1960, c. 366; 1973, c. 502; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 552; 1977, c. 109; 1979, c. 583; 1980, c. 362; 1981, c. 559; 1989, c. 719; 2006, c. 285; 2007, c. 212; 2008, cc. 147, 183.)



                                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         

That the above listed Search Warrant is in violation to 19.2-54 as listed here on this page.  Gloucester County, Virginia citizens can not afford and will not tolerate criminals to be employed in this county and are requesting full termination of the employment of one Gloria Owens immediately based on the above complaint.  This complaint has been sent to the Gloucester County, Virginia board of Supervisors as well as the county Administrator for action.

  Local law can not supersede state law.  No state law can supersede another state law.  Animal Control laws can not and do not supersede state search warrant laws.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• La Mesa resident prevails in illegal search case