Navigation
Search

Login
« At Last, Data on Raw Milk and Lactose Intolerance; Raw-Milk Legislation; A Pre-Internet Recollection | Main | The Smiths Fire Back in Contempt of Court Action: Did NY Ag & Markets Shoot Itself in the Foot? »
Wednesday
20Feb

NY Ag & Markets “Contempt” Case Looking Ever More Like Swiss Cheese—Smiths Allege 4th Amendment and Other Search Warrant Violations

bigstockphoto_Swiss_Cheese_1914106.jpgI’m glad to learn that many of you want to know the details of the proceedings in the raw-milk legal cases, because those details are becoming more intriguing literally by the day. That “slam dunk” Bob Hayles is looking for? Well, I think you’ll find this post quite interesting.

Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has been a busy man, and his legal creation of the last couple days might best be termed “Search Warrants 101.” He has filed a motion in the New York state court that scheduled the show-cause hearing in the case of Barb and Steve Smith/Meadowsweet Dairy LLC, arguing that the December search warrant the Smiths supposedly defied in December “is facially defective…and must be quashed.”

Here’s Gary’s argument: The administrative search warrant issued by Judge John C. Egan in December, allowing the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets to search Meadowsweet Dairy for raw milk products, “states that the Department is ‘authorized to enter the premises on a continuing basis.’ In essence, there is no end to when the Department may stop searching the Respondents, no matter how long ago it has been since the warrant was issued. Conceivably, the warrant that was issued in December 2007 could still be executed in December 2017, ten years later. A blanket warrant with no expiration date is not only in violation of the express provisions of (New York law), it also violates the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the probable cause which existed at the time the warrant was issued must be ‘closely related to’ the probable cause that exists at the time of its execution.”

Moreover, Gary argues that under New York law, an administrative search warrant must be carried out within ten days, and then only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. He notes that the Meadowsweet warrant was issued Dec. 14, 2007, and executed at least twice—on Dec. 19 and Dec. 28. The second time was 14 days after issuance.

This ten-day restriction is hard-and-fast, he suggests, based on legal precedent. “The failure to execute the warrant within the ten-day statutory period ‘may not be excused as a mere ministerial or clerical aspect of search warrant proceedings'…Thus, once a warrant is issued it must be executed within ten days. A warrant cannot be issued one day and then be executed over and over again ad infinitum into the future.”

The reason behind the tight schedule, he says, “is that the probable cause necessary for execution of the warrant must be ‘so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.’ “

Wait, there’s more. “In this case, the warrant not only authorizes the Department to enter Respondents’ premises ‘on a continuing basis,’ it also states that such authority to enter on a continuing basis can be exercised ‘only when the Department has probable cause to believe’ that a violation of law is occurring. This blanket authorization allowing the Department to determine what constitutes probable cause is a clear violation of the constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the New York Constitution at Article 1 Section 12.

“In addition, because the warrant improperly delegates the determination of probable cause to an administrative agency or office, it also constitutes a violation of the separation of powers doctrine because it transfers a judicial function to an executive agency.”

There’s one other little detail that Gary brings up--the fact that Meadowsweet Dairy is a herd share organized as a limited liability company. “In this case, Respondents allege that based on the facts of the case, they are not even subject to New York’s Agriculture and Market Laws (A&ML) and thus probable cause cannot, as a matter of law, form the basis of an administrative search warrant.”

I’ve long wondered about those administrative search warrants, and the supposed carte blanche they provide regulators. An administrative search warrant was used by the Michigan Department of Agriculture to gain entry to Greg Niewendorp’s farm and eventually force-test his cattle for bovine TB last fall.

Gary has obviously researched these things and, lo and behold, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment has applicability.

His argument is very persuasive. But for Judge Egan to be persuaded will require the judge to admit he screwed up, big time, in going along with Ag and Markets in granting such an open-ended warrant. Should be an interesting court session.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (12)

Administrative search warrants, are these the same thing as the commonly claimed power to inspect licensed operations regularly and at will; or is this something else? And what is the difference between an administrative search warrant and a normal search warrant?

Also, does someone know what legal theory was conjured up 125 years ago to justify regulating private sales of food between two people?
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterpete
David, thank you for explaining all this in detail - I appreciate it.
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCarol Peterson
Power, as our founders understood so well, rarely if ever checks itself. It was inevitable that as government become ever more dense and complex, exerting powers would leak from their containers.

Gary Cox is explaining, in excruciating detail, the effects of power leakage. His description of “the transfer [of] a judicial function to an executive agency”, in essence giving regulators more power than they could fairly and reasonably wield, makes this clear. Such shenanigans occur daily from the top to the bottom in government. Presidents and legislators notate laws to release themselves from the laws’ effects. Field agents throw their weight around.

The problem is systemic. Vote Libertarian.
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave Milano
Keep it up Gary...this is proof that the best defense is a good offense...don't give 'em room to squirm...er...move. Keep 'em busy covering old screw ups so thaey can't come up with new ones.

Bob Hayles
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBob Hayles
Join the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and support this work. Consumer memberships are $50 per year, and farmer memberships are $125. See our website www.farmtoconsumer.org
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
I joined the FCLDF in December. It has become very clear to me that it is going to take more than just making wise purchasing choices to keep access to good food.
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnna
a little offense doesn't hurt once in a while and this was the right time to play that card.

"the logical end to defensive warfare is defeat."

napoleon bonaparte.
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterGary Cox
Gary...states love the constitution so long as it lets them defy the feds, but they really REALLY hate the constitution when it limits THEIR power. Keep it up...this is where we can win I think.

And, since you like quotes, here is an applicable one, "You wanna fight? OK...let me open up a can of whupass."

Lewis Grizzard, a great American and writer, 1995.

Bob
February 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBob Hayles
In this time where most of society sees lawyers as money hungry people with no morals, I am excited and delighted to see Gary Cox rise above this sterotype. Thank you for doing such a great job on this case, it's refreshing to see to the heroics you are performing with the Smith's case...and I just joined FCLDF!
February 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJen
Gary Cox was instrumental in winning the Dec. 2006 court decision that gained legal recognition of herdshare contracts here in Ohio and has been on a roll ever since! :-)


February 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon Neeper
I went ahead and joined the FCLDF as a farmer as Steve Bemis suggested due to the excellent legal work of Mr. Cox and the superlative reporting of Mr. Gumpert. How can defending the basic premises of the Constitution be bad? Money well spent.
February 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKirsten
Thanks. "Keep those cards and letters coming!"

-Dean Martin, sometime (quoting Loretta Lynn).
February 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.