[Saints News] Business Code Taken to Court

[borhoi]

 

 

Business Code Taken to Court

By Haley Niamh Connor

 

   Well, that was quick. Just a few days after I wrote my last piece on the new Business Code, Stanton-Kerrigan Corporation (a local law-firm) is taking the code to court. I'm not surprised that it's being challenged. I'll preface this by saying I'm firmly on Stanton-Kerrigan's side here. The issues with the code they've listed in their civil complaint fall directly in line with my own grievances. Let's go piece-by-piece and unpack this dismantling of bad policy.

   Section 303 of the code is where my grievances began, and Stanton-Kerrigan starts their complaint with the same section. Their complaint brings to light the /fact/ that section 303 allows the city's Department of Finance to "levy fees without oversight or legislation which names such fees". The last part there is the most important. Under the code, as it is now, the Director of the Department of Finance can levy new fees on businesses at his own discretion. That's not good for business, and it isn't good for democracy. Any new fees - which for the purposes of business licensing are a nicer word for taxes - should have to be approved by a City Council. Like the rest of this code, this egregious and worrying policy should be null and void.

   They move on to the next part of the code I complained about, Section 501. I can't put into words how stupified I was when I read that now, /lawfully/, the department of finance can violate your Fourth Amendment rights, close your business, and interrogate your employees and customers. This section would never have made it through any kind of legislative debate because not only is it objectively bad policy, it's unconstitutional.

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.

That's the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Meanwhile, let's read Section 501 of the Business Code:

"The Department of Finance shall have the right to conduct business inspections to monitor and enforce compliance with this code or any other relevant law. This right shall include but not be limited to (a) investigating complaints submitted to the department; (b) questioning any individual on any premises in respect of any matter which may be relevant to the inspection; (c) questioning any person suspected of having information relevant to the inspection; (d) ordering any person to appear before him at a reasonable time and place with regard to the matter being investigated and/or (e) inspecting or copying any document, take photographs, make audio-visual recordings of any person, process, action or condition on or regarding any premises and take samples of any substance that is relevant to the inspection; (f) having the power to close any premises pending further investigation as provided for in this code."

   Too long? Didn't read? That's okay. The gist of what Section 501 lays out is this: if the Department of Finance feels like ruining your business they can do so wholly and completely at the drop of a hat. They are explicitly allowed to do so on a whim, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of non-compliance. They're allowed to shut your business' doors, question your employees and customers Gestapo-style, and search every nook and cranny of your establishment. They can do all of this on a hunch or because of a single complaint. There are /no/ limits laid out in the current version of the code. They nail the issue on the head in their section on 501b:

"Section 501(b) Seeks to allow the Director of Finance to perform interrogations at a person's place of business which may have a chilling effect on customers wanting to do business at such establishment. This may allow for persons to be detained by the Director of Finance at his/her own whims and in violation of their right to due process."

   This is the reality of the situation and I'm glad it's being pointed out in front of a judge. The Department of Finance has no business conducting investigations like this. No one does in America. This actual law eschews any form of due process and respect for individual rights.

Section 502 doubles down on the code's unconstitutional shenanigans and Stanton-Kerrigan takes it to task. Here's the relevant plain text of Section 502 from the Business Code:

"502a - Any representative of the Department of Finance may enter any premises where he or she reasonably suspects that a business activity is being conducted.
502c - Any representative of the Department of Finance may question any person on the premises and conduct an inspection of any business activity on the premises. 
502e -Any representative of the Department of Finance may remove any goods on the premises in violation of this code and confiscate them. The license holder shall be given a receipt with details of the goods that are seized and impounded."

 

   That's in direct violation of the Constitution. There isn't a need for precedence or debate on this part of Stanton-Kerrigan's complaint. Reasonable suspicion does not a warrant grant, and under this code, no warrant is even required for the Department of Finance to turn your business upside down. Luckily, this is called out in the text of the complaint. Stanton-Kerrigan points out that these "unwarranted searches" are empowered by Section 502 to be carried out by any representative of the Department of Finance. This code allows one department of the City Government to act independently of due process and constitutional rights. If anything, we can rest assured that barring some kind of catastrophic breakdown of our legal system, sections 501 and 502 will be abolished.

The final part of Stanton-Kerrigan's complaint goes into a section of the code I didn't touch on in my previous piece. I'd written that virtually every part of the code could be dissected and something bad would show itself. Here's my case-in-point. Section 603:

"Any person issued with a sanction as listed in section one (1) of this chapter may appeal against such sanction to the Business Dispute Resolution Board, hereinafter referred to as the "BDRB", in the prescribed manner and form within seven (7) days after receiving such sanction."

   Yeah, you read that right. If you've been put through all the aforementioned warrantless searching and invasive, unconstitutional treatment, your only option is to appeal via a city-ran arbitrator! It's not even hyperbole to point out that under this set of unneeded regulations the Department of Finance is allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner of LS's businesses.

 

   Regardless of the outcome, it's a good thing that this is already being challenged in court. I predict that the code will be swiftly struck down by this case though, and that's a good precedent for the state's only functioning branch of government - its courts -  to set. Abuse of power this flagrant can't be allowed to go unchecked. As the process of checking it unfolds I'll be here covering it. For now, all we can do is watch democracy in action.

 

The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect the opinions of Saints News as a whole, but those of its author Haley Niamh Connor.

 

This article contains sponsored multimedia advertisements. This has not affected the content of this article.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by borhoi

[borhoi]

Addendum: Link to previous piece