SUPREMES EXAMINING CITY'S DECISION TO TAKE WOMAN'S PRIVATE
LAND, Warnings of 'warrantless searches by government and
unbridled trespassing' by Bob Unruh, 3/5/18, WND
The Supreme Court has agreed to take a
case in which a town has threatened to turn a woman’s private 90 acres
into public property. The justices said Monday they will hear
arguments in the case Knick v. Scott Township, on which WND reported last year.
The Pennsylvania dispute developed
when Scott Township officials abruptly adopted an ordinance that requires
landowners to open their property to the public if there are claims that a
historical gravesite exists on the land.
The 90 acres owned by Rose Mary Knick
has been in her family for half a century, and someone claimed there was on old
gravesite on the land. No proof was necessary, according to the law, which
requires that the landowner provide daily public access to the site.
Knick went to court, but the state
courts said they won’t act because the township said Knick shouldn’t worry,
because officials won’t enforce any requirement against her.
Federal courts said that by precedent
they cannot act until state courts do.
“Scott Township’s graveyard law forces
property owners to allow warrantless searches by government and unbridled
trespassing by the public,” said Pacific
Legal Foundation Senior
Attorney J. David Breemer. The case puts the court into one of the
thorniest areas of property rights.
Back in 2012, the township adopted an
ordinance requiring owners of cemeteries to allow public access. Officials
contend there’s a “cemetery” on Knick’s land.
State courts refused Knick’s plea for
help because the town “had withdrawn its notice of violation and agreed not to enforce the law,” an
analysis said. But the requirement still would exist and could be enforced at
any point.
Federal courts then said a state adjudication was required before they could act.
“There is no cemetery mentioned in the chain of title
going back hundreds of years,” said Pacific Legal Foundation, which has won
numerous property rights cases at the Supreme Court.
“Nevertheless, in 2013, a town
enforcement officer entered the property searching for graveyards. Soon after,
Ms. Knick was issued a notice of violation claiming her property contained an
old burial ground that had not been kept open to the public. She later received
a second notice of violation.”
Knick said: “It was unbelievable that
the town would trample all over my rights this way, making it open season for
trespassing on my land. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will take a
stand for the Constitution, and for everybody’s property rights, by striking
down this outrageous law.”
Isolated grave sites are not uncommon in
parts of the country where there is no ban on burials on private ground. And,
indeed, sometimes burials date back to before rules and regulations were in
place. So the plains of Pennsylvania contain small burial plots for families. However, the records don’t show any such
location on Knick’s land, PLF said.
The township simply adopted procedures
for its “code enforcement” agents to search her land without permission, and
while trespassing, they claimed to have found stone evidence of burial plots.
The lower courts then decided the
township had created a “right of way” for the public. The demand for access to Knick’s land
came after an anonymous “citizen inquiry” claimed there was a burial ground
there.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment