2257 VS illegal search and seizure?
 

Does the FBI legally have the right to knock on your door and say "We are here to search your records" even though they have no grounds of suspicion?

I mean, they can't just knock on my door and say "Hey, we think there might be a chance you use drugs so we want to search your house". Don't they have to have cause?

Isn't 2257 illegal search and seizure?

Yes just like if you ran a deli the health dept can come in any time.

Its an inspection not a search warrant they can only look at docs.

Engrish not in first 15 or 20 languages?

I have a friend who said they come to the door they aint comng in. I said your braver than me. lol Also 2257 assumes your guilty until proven innocent.

Even if it was Illegal some cock whore would just create a law over riding that and make it legal to do it. Just more horse shit.

They are only looking at the documents, not searching and not seizing anything. Its an inspection, nothing more.
WG

If you read the whole thing, they can bring local law enforcement with them and if they see something illegal they can act on it. Say someone had a roach in a ashtray.Thats why its good to have a simple office , no distractions no bullshit.Its worth the monthly rent.

Well they have the right to see your docs, not enter your home/business. I'd tell em to wait, then bring em a box of printouts for them to look at on your doorstep.

Bonus points of it's raining or snowing out :)

I kind of can see where Rochard is coming from.

Although I don't think it's illegal, just like government agencies can inspect other business.

However, most of those other government agencies are not law enforcement.

It does seem to fall under the violating your 5th amendment right not to have to incriminate yourself, since if you do violate these rules *and I'm talking clearly a clerical violation, and not using a minor* you can serve jail time.

If some guy running a poultry farm, forgets to document on some form where the chicken's were shipped to, he will only be assessed some civil penalty.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~zeigleem/brave.jpg

ADG

Patriot Act.

Anyone who doesn't have full, valid 2257 documents is obviously funding terrorism.

:upsidedow

They don't just knock on your door and demand to search your records. They will have a list of specific content that they are investigating (after going through your members area and choosing 'suspicious-looking' content).

The list is limited, and while they are on your premises, they can only look at the content that is on their list, which they must disclose to you. They do not require a warrant because it is a targeted investigation based on existing enforceable regulations.

You should be present during every part of the investigation and make copious notes, just in case the investigator makes a mistake -- they are not allowed to ask for any information other than what is on their list.

Just my 2 cents, not legal advice. Get a lawyer if you don't have one and join the FSC.

I can't post links to other sites yet, but this is my source: (note the spacing in the URL -- only way I could post the link).

h t t p :// w w w . firstamendment.com/media/2257%20Inspection%20Procedure%20Presentation.pdf

My lawyer said you should have a room in your office or home that is just records and nothing else is in there .

I call this the Dracula effect. In the old vampire movies, Dracula had to be invited before he could enter your house. Once he was invited then you're up the proverbial shit creek without a paddle.

An example of what can and does happen. Police show up on your doorstep for some kind of noise complaint, they ask if they can come in.

House owner says yes. The police enter, and once they do, they then while talking to you, look around the immediate area to see if they can find something that will allow them to expand their search.

If they are standing in the living room, and can see clearly down the hall that there is a bag of weed on your bed because the door was left open, they can now expand their search to the rest of the house.

This is why it's best to just have a screen door, and never open it to them and only speak through the screen door with them.

Don't even step outside.

The best advice I ever heard was..."never commit a crime while committing a crime."

Most simple drug busts come from people doing stupid shit like fighting and having the cops called to the house.

or driving around town with a bag of weed in their pocket, and their tail light out / or tags expired etc.

Sorry, but this is BS. They are LEA. If they notice something else in the general vicinity of the area they are standing in, you're gonna fuck yourself.

I know of one person that works out of their house, and all the paperwork is kept in a file box right next to the front door to be handed out immediately upon request, keeping them from entering the house or getting past that foyer.

I would NEVER put that information in a room near the back of the house, in fact the way things are now. I would go out and rent a hole in the wall that has nothing but a clean computer with no internet connection, and a file cabinet with everything in it.

Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

Seriously, Rochard, one of the issues is that 2257 is a record inspection procedure, not a court ordered "search and seizure". It isn't any different from an inspector coming into a restaurant looking for the latest roach spray stickers, the duct cleaning notice, and the city business permit. The law clearly spells out the process, and in fact requires Americans and american based businesses to specifically list a records inspection location.

Essentially, the law itself is your notice of intent to inspect (or search) your records, and they reserve the right under the law to exercise their rights at any time.

Erowebmaster, your idea for a hole in the wall is correct, except that you have to maintain regular office hours in that hole in the wall to be legal. You cannot have an empty office or unattended location as your records office. There is still much debate about the location of a records office, as many of the major porn companies use their lawyers office as the records location. The new 2257 apparently makes that less of an option, from what I can gather.

All law enforcement agents can take notice of anything they can see in plain view, and either react to it immediately or use those observations as the basis of a true search warrant in the future. It is one of the hazards of operating from home, your private and public lives get mixed together, and it can get a little messy. An external office is a really good idea, but you have to attend and that isn't always easy.

The FBI cannot walk in to a Target department store and say "We think you might be in violation of some law" without having cause. They have to have some kind of proof that some kind of crime is being commited - and usually need some kind of a warrent.

Does the FBI randomly pick employers across the country to see if any labor laws are being violated? No, of course not.

This is a reactive law, not proactive. They aren't trying to stop anyone from breaking the law, but trying to catch them after the fact.

Whats your point Roc?

They inspect when and where they want reguardless of laws pertaining to other operations...

THis is America dude... were like 70 years over due for a revision/revolution

John Adams is rollin in his grave knowing were being screwed over with our record handling all while being blamed on the protection of kids...


i mean youre arguing that a completely retarded and irrelevant law is practiced in an unjust manner...

You get your car inspected every year because it is required by law.

Maybe the tech will find a seed on the floor and call the police.

Anyway... be sure than tell those SOBs to go to hell unless they have a search warrent... and see where that gets you.

If it wasn't legal, they wouldn't be doing it.

If it wasn't legal, the FSC would have used that to fight the law.

If it wasn't legal, they would just pass a law to make it legal.

It is just the way it is.

I personally dont think this will pass constitutional muster, it seems to be a very clear violation of the 4th amendment, but we wont know for sure until its tested in the courts

Other business they have records checked but its not a surprise there is a letter or a phone that we are coming of such and such date.This one is like if you dont know when we care coming we can catch doing something wrong. If they say we know where you are then why do you have to post your custodian of record info for any scumbag to see. Wait I forgot this law isnt to protect kids its to fuck with pornographers nothing more.

As a business you don't have the same rights as an individual. The thing that's different, is with most other inspections, for other businesses you are contacted upfront.

IE OSHA, Taxes, even health inspections for restaurants ect.. ect.. It's actually kinda BS that these are "surprise" inspections. Specially when they have now said how people are picked. Meaning they are supposed picked randomly.

What I'm interested to know, is there any other for of regular inspections that are carried out by the FBI? For restaurants it's a "health inspector.. For taxes it's a IRS agent (granted they use agents because it's a federal issue with taxes).

Why is it adult is being checked by the FBI? Seems to me using the FBI is kind of like a intimidation factor.

The law specified that the AG or his appointed reps (that being the FBI) do the inspections. They could just as easily have the "2257 police" do it, if that would make you feel better.

You're missing the point, I was making.

Yes he is.

I'll try to emphasize it. When you own a Taco Bell, the local government sends a Health Inspector.

If they find issues in your store, they cite them down on a piece of paper, if it's a certain level of issues, or one of the issues is severe, they then give you X amount of days to rectify the situation.

Then you may be fined...however one thing they will not do is have you thrown in jail for being in violation.

Same can't be said for the 2257 Inspections...this is a Civil VS what can amount to a Criminal investigation for adult biz owners.

Eroswebmaster, I don't know where you live, but up here the resturant inspectors can write tickets ON THE SPOT. That includes missing your business license, being over capacity, no hair nets, etc. There is a laundry list. They even have the power, in extreme conditions, to close your business down.

Health inspections aren't civil law, they are criminal law. They are actually very similar to parking tickets written by non-police "meter maids". It is still a crime.

You need to go back and understand the difference between criminal law and civil actions. Two different games. Criminally, OJ wasn't guilty, but in a civil case, he was found liable. Very different.

I think he is trying to stress that nobody does jailtime for a failed health inspection. Worst case is they close you down and fine you. Well maybe there is some draconian law that permits them to prohibit you from ever owning or operating such an establishment again.

There is one difference. The restaurant has to get a license that requires the inspections. Did you register to obtain a porno website license?

The health inspector can't closed down my personal backyard BBQ grill no matter how fucking nasty it is because I don't have a food service license that places me under their jurisdiction.

I'm trying to stress that there are minors legally working in other indudutries such as fast food and department stores and specific laws apply to the hiring of minors. Why doesn't the FBI walk into the gas station up the street without warning and demand to see their records?

Can the FBI walk into my local bank and demand to inspect their records because they are pretty sure that somewhere along the line they shorted somesome some money?

The comments about the health inspectors don't reall apply.... That's a proactive law - they are trying to prevent someone from getting sick.

Which brings me to my point. 2257 laws are not "proactive" but instead "reactive". "They" try to tell the public that they are doing someting about child porn with this law, but in truth they aren't stopping it but only looking for proof of it after the fact. It's a total waste of time.

Interesting point and I have to admit I didn't get it on the first read.

But after thinking a bit, the inspection on performers ID BEFORE a shoot would be the proactive measure that prevented cp. So good point.

They way the gov wants it is that even though you validated IDs and are totally legal you still go to jail if you ever lose a piece of paper.

You cant be serious :1orglaugh

Very good point, if it were not for alternate agenda, this would nullify this "act"


Where was the DOJ when Kathy Lee was Crackin the whip....

http://www.robbscelebs.co.uk/noops10...gifford001.jpg

It would be an interesting point to litigate if you have a couple of million to throw around.

Just because a citation can be written and a penalty assessed does not make something part of the criminal code...LOL I like your last paragraph...it's as if you're speaking to a five year old.

So in response, I guess I shall treat you in the same manner...I think you need to go back and learn what the differences between Criminal / penal Code, Civil Code, family code, health code etc. are.

And then you might wanna take a look at how even those codes change from a federal level, all the way down to a municipal level.

No that is not what you were trying to stress...you were discussing illegal searches and seizures...and yes the health inspector comments DO apply...when the government is likening their record inspections to a proactive job like health inspector...when a health inspection will not land you in jail...and as someone has already pointed out...that by obtaining a business license, and a health license by the state / county you live in you have already agreed to these health inspections.

However, we adult webmasters have not agreed to this...the law that apply to us falls under "crimes and criminal procedure."

Adult webmasters are in a sense being forced to self incriminate themselves by opening up their records for inspection.

Your thinking is interesting but wrong, because you are making assumptions.

2257 is law similar in nature to environmental protection or workplace safety.

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1486

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/Schum...us.082805.html

http://www.nsp.state.ne.us/findfile.asp?id=1912

Essentially, we are a regulated industry, with the laws written in such a manner that assumes that pornographers are breaking the law (on model age) unless we can prove we are not. We are required at any time to prove that this is the case.

In fact, it is exactly the same as liquor laws: Police can show up at any time WITHOUT CAUSE and check IDs and ages of the patrons of a bar. It is an age restrictive area, and only maintains it's rights to be in business if the partons are of age. Essentially, they require that all patrons have ID with their age, and in many states, ALL patrons are checked regardless of age.

So I understand where you are trying to go, but you are applying the wrong industry standards.

I wonder how the courts would react about "Probable Cause" and "no grounds of suspicion" given that the FBI "apparently" reviews VOD/Web Sites/etc to identify talent folks that appear to them to be possibly under 18 years of age, thus giving them "cause-suspicion" to inspect??? Inspections versus Investigations --routine admin versus Probale cause????

I wonder if an "Investigation" requires a judge's approval for a warrant? If so, the use of "inspections" might be "harassment" and reason to challenge the law's constitutionally?

dave

so the gov needs to create the porno police?

The difference between our industry and others that are regulated like Bars, is that Bars have to be licensed...casinos have to be licensed...chemical waste plants have to be licensed...restaurants and I'm not just referring to business licenses.

By obtaining these licenses, they agree to be regulated by the government entity that issued those licenses.

Actually this is a very valid point...there was a case where police officers were at a motel and smelled marijuana emanating from a room. So they forced entry into a room and searched it and found drugs.

The case was thrown out because the appellate judge ruled that the officers not being 100% certain which room the smell had come out of had plenty of time to attempt to obtain a search warrant.

So it would seem to follow the same line of logic here. They view a scene, and think..."she looks young." Why do they not have to then take this scene and show a D.A. who then goes in front of a judge for a search warrant?

There is simply a perception of liberty. We are free to be as we wish when there is a lack of audience. The war against terror is only a good thing until the battle comes to your door.

That is traffic of the ugliest skim. Foul, human, and carrying a "badge.

"It's not that I don't like policemen; I just feel better when the're not around."

.. would still use it for unchanged cat litter....