View Single Post
Old 07-25-2013, 07:45 PM  
Joe Obenberger
Confirmed User
 
Joe Obenberger's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 466
This is my take on what's most important in Judge Baylson's curious Opinion.

http://www.xxxlaw.com/articles/baylson.html

No, there's nothing in the Opinion ever requiring warrants.

Start reading at page 63 of Judge Baylson's Opinion and start reading closely at page 68. He's all across the boards and rambles his way into a finding that no other court has come close to. He says 2257 Inspections don't need a warrant, and while he is not touching the statute, he's concerned with the Regulations. He won't expressly determine them to be facially unconstitutional. He says it works with advance notice when the records are in a bona fide home, not a warrant. He then seems to excuse custodians who go on vacation and don't comply with the Regulations that require availability for inspection - and the presence of the custodian - at least 20 hours per week - at page 69. But he never directly deals with the Regulations insofar as they require those 20 hours per week. And he doesn't begin to explain why the situation in the home, in that respect, should be different in an office or studio. This ramble around the issues is honestly difficult if you are looking for a logical, coherent judicial determination. The words that come to mind are "peculiar" and "curious" with regard to what he has to say about home inspections. The word "wrong" comes to mind about the whole document readily.
__________________


Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.
Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Joe Obenberger is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote