Common Nuisance Code
If you look at common nuisance laws side by side with U.S. Constitution.
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

After many years of abating nuisances, Bill Cameron, the former City Attorney of Kennewick, noted that nuisance abatement is a human problem. It is the people who create the nuisance that are the problem, not the nuisance itself. Local officials need to keep in mind that the persons creating a nuisance may have mental problems; many have little money. When the method of abatement is chosen, the circumstance of the person creating the nuisance should be taken into consideration. Humane treatment is a moral imperative. Other government agencies may be of assistance. Child protective services, adult protective services, and the local health district may be a valuable resource. People are all individuals and remedies must be tailored to the individual. Experience and judgment are the only guides. People can be stubborn. Sane, but stubborn people are often quite receptive to a citation. The reality of fines, jail and attorney fees are a wake up call. Complicated people seem better dealt with in Superior Court.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Most code enforcement programs are complaint driven. Complaints result in an inspection and a warning letter to the violator, followed by a notice of citation if action to correct the violation have not been taken by the property owner. This is followed by official abatement proceedings if the violator still has not take care of the problem within a specified period of time. As an alternative to abatement, some cities use neighborhood mediation centers and voluntary agreements. Except for situations of imminent or immediate danger, the enforcement of nuisance provisions is a policy issue dependent on the level of service a community can provide with available resources.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Several communities have developed proactive code enforcement programs. Others only deal with nuisances when they become a serious health or safety problem. Many local governments simply do not have adequate funding to make code enforcement a priority. The courts have recognized that governments generally do not have sufficient resources to hire staff to seek out violations of all regulations. It is common practice for cities and counties to enforce zoning ordinances, animal control, and nuisance ordinances on a complaint-only basis. See Frame Factory v. Ecology, 21 Wn.App 50, 57 (1978).

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Enforcement Responsibility - Code Enforcement Officers
The enforcement of nuisance codes is often neglected, because the task can be onerous. Having a single person or department responsible for the enforcement of nuisance regulations can be beneficial, as it allows a jurisdiction to address nuisance problems globally; promotes accountability; and helps end confusion by directing public contact to a single location, instead of being fragmented over several departments. Enforcement should be assigned to a diligent, motivated employee - someone who is good at working with problem people. The job should be given the priority that it deserves, and the code enforcement employee should have the support and resources necessary to do the job right.

Ideally, this should be a building inspector or fire marshal and preferably someone that carries a badge and can issue citations. In some cities assigning a police officer to deal with nuisance complaints may be appropriate. While some police officers might consider it beneath their dignity to chase trashers, the social harm that can be caused by a nuisance is far greater than that caused by many criminals. In his 1997 Legal Notes article, Bill Cameron, former Kennewick City Attorney ironically noted that "We will go to practically any expense to arrest a kid because he stuck-up a 7-Eleven store and made off with 50 bucks, but we are unwilling to go after the trasher who has peeled a half million dollars off the value of his neighborhood."

The responsibility and specific procedures for handling complaints differ among jurisdictions. For example, Bremerton's code enforcement program is carried out by the building department. In Port Angeles it is the public works department. In Lakewood it is the department of community development. In Ellensburg it is the police department.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Discussion on Right of Entry
Consensual searches are not unreasonable and do not require a warrant. However, it is now advised that a warrant be obtained to enter property when permission is not obtained. In a Ninth Circuit Court case involving the City of Santa Ana, Connor v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Circuit 1990), the court held that a warrant was required prior to entering property to inspect for a nuisance violation. This was based on the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution due process clause.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


City of Pasco v. Shaw, 161 Wn. 2d 450 (9/13/2007) [Licensing of rental units/compliance with codes] To address a problem with the poor conditions of some rental units within the city, the city council passed an ordinance requiring landlords, to be licensed by the city, have inspections made of their rental units and furnish the city with certificates of inspectors certify that their units met applicable building codes. A challenge was brought, arguing that the required inspections constituted improper searches and that the inspection ordinance was too vague to be enforceable. On appeal, the court disagreed.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


General Definition
In very general terms a nuisance is something that annoys -- a wearing on the nerves by a persistent unpleasantness. It can evoke anger and interfere with comfort and peace of mind. In a regulatory environment the term nuisance embraces anything that results in an invasion of one's legal rights. A nuisance involves an unreasonable or unlawful use of property which results in material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or damage to another person or to the public. The unlawful use may involve doing something (example: piling garbage on residential property) or failing to do something (example: cutting or removing noxious weeds from residential property).

Nuisances are sometimes called nuisances because they are remedied by abatement. Common nuisances include the accumulation of junk, animals, noise, dangerous buildings, sewage and unsanitary conditions, and encroachments on public right-of-way which interfere with pedestrian passage. The words abate and abatement are the legal terms used to describe the process for putting an end to, or terminating the nuisance.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

RCW 7.48.120 Nuisance defined. Nuisance consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission either annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, any lake or navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or any public park, square, street or highway; or in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property. Note to reader --RCW 7.48.120 has not been amended since 1881.
RCW. 9.66.010 Public Nuisance. A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state. Every place (1) Wherein any fighting between people or animals or birds shall be conducted; or, (2) Wherein any intoxicating liquors are kept for unlawful use, sale or distribution; or, (3) Where vagrants resort; and Every act unlawfully done and every omission to perform a duty, which act or omission (1) Shall annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of persons; or, (2) Shall offend public decency; or, (3) Shall unlawfully interfere with, befoul, obstruct, or tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, highway, or municipal transit vehicle or station; or, (4) Shall in any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of property; Shall be a public nuisance. [1994 c 45 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 280 § 22; 1909 c 249 § 248; 1895 c 14 § 1; Code 1881 §1246; RRS § 2500.]


Signers
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G. Washington-Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: Wm: Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: Wil: Livingston, David Brearly, Wm. Paterson, Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania: B. Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt. Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware: Geo: Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco: Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Dan of St Thos. Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia: John Blair--, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina: Wm. Blount, Richd. Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina: J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia: William Few, Abr Baldwin


The signers of the constituion believed in citizens rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happines.
When ever the law enforcement, city government, state government officals go after citizens rights to medicine. It is not the citizens that are a common nuisance. It is the police, DEA and the state and local law enforcement and city government are the common nuisance