Drug Dealer or Florida Homeowner: Who Does Constitution Really Protect?
The Oppenheim Law editorial team found this ironic: A drug dealer has more constitutional rights to protection from the government in his home than your average homeowner in foreclosure.
In a case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that because the “home” has a long standing history of receiving additional constitutional protect
Interestingly enough, the U.S. government, through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is the single largest investor of residential mortgages. So what this really means is that the government can steal your house through bad loan paperwork and fraudulent foreclosure practices, but the local drug dealer is safe from a sniff by Franky the Drug Sniffing Dog.ions, using a drug sniffing dog outside the front door of a drug dealer’s house constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Yet this same court has allowed banks and investors to use the lower courts in Florida as their own private collection agency.
This is yet one more example of the absurd turn that this country has taken during the real estate crash and subsequent foreclosure crisis, putting the government into the position of protecting the sanctity of a home owned by a drug dealer violating criminal laws, while stripping the same protections from one who is just down on his financial luck, in part due to the banks themselves.
The English belief that “every man’s house is his castle” formed the basis of the Fourth Amendment, and yet now has been convoluted to only protect criminals from prosecution, while leaving homeowners in foreclosure high and dry against a system that steamrolls their constitutional rights in the interest of protecting big banks, Wall Street, and now Uncle Sam.
The Florida Supreme Court stated in its holding that a “dog sniff” was “a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and constitutes a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
Notably, numerous bank executives have been quoted as saying egregiously negative things about homeowners who admittedly cannot afford their payments, but who have legitimate defenses against banks who have attempted to ignore constitutional and statutory rights as homeowners.
Essentially, these lenders and their leaders who are paid tens of millions of dollars a year have taken the position that “these homeowners haven’t paid, so who cares about their rights and any defenses they may have.” Yet, for a drug dealing homeowner whose house is full of drugs, the fact that his house may have been subject to unlawful search and seizure is not only highly relevant, but in fact could prevent any prosecution of him, even though he clearly is guilty.
The question raised by this case is: how can the Constitution protect drug dealers from “Franky the Drug Sniffing Dog,” while leaving thousands of homeowners homeless at the hands of illegals seizures by “Freddie and Fannie – the government investors?”
The Constitution was not intended to protect only part of the population. The Court should interpret the Constitution evenly, and should not work to protect criminals over the average American taxpayer suffering at the hands of a broken economy.
If you are in or near foreclosure and need help keeping your home, please contact the team at Oppenheim Law.