Go to a legal library and look up "Nuisances" in American Jurisprudence 2nd Ed., American Law
Reports, and/or Corpus Juris Secundum. Read Read Read!!! You also have to understand that some of
the police powers given to communities by state legislatures are to protect the public from public
nuisances (they have to be on public property or someplace where the public has a right to go) and
nuisances per se. Junk on private property, if it is not in the alleys or on sidewalks, is not generally a
public nuisance. It could be a nuisance per se (something that is known to be dangerous or could easily
cause harm to those around it).
Weeds are considered a nuisance because rodents and other vermin use the weeds for breeding places.
Even if a municipality was clothed with the whole police power of the state, it would not have authority
to deprive a citizen of valuable property rights under the guise of prohibiting or regulating something
which had no tendency to injure the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Haskell v
Howard, 269 Ill 550, 109 NE 992.
To constitute a public nuisance, a nuisance must be in a public place or where the public frequently
congregates, or where members of the public are likely to come within the range of its influence. Neal
Darby (App) 282 SC 277, 318 SE2d 18.
A public nuisance consists of an interference with the rights of the community at large, which may
include anything from the blocking of a highway to a gaming-house or indecent exposure. Philadelphia
Electric Co. v Hercules, Inc. (CA3 Pa) 762 F2d 303, 15 ELR 20554, cert den 474 US 980, 88 L Ed 2d
337, 106 S Ct 384.
The concept of public nuisance requires an interference with some common public right. Napro
Development Corp. v Berlin, 135 Vt 353, 376 A2d 342.
The police power does not justify interference with private rights for purposes unconnected with the
safety, health, morals, or general welfare of the public. Haskell v Howard, 269 Ill 550, 109 NE 992.
Under a charter giving a municipality the right to "regulate the police of the town," it cannot, under
the guise of the police power, assume to regulate and control the acts and conduct of a citizen by which
the public is in no way affected in any of its rights and interests. Cortland v Larson, 273 Ill 602, 113
Any law abridging the right to a use of property which use does not infringe upon the rights of others,
or which limits the use of property beyond what is necessary to provide for the welfare and general
security of the public, cannot be included in the police power of a municipal government. Willison v
Cooke, 54 Colo 320, 130 P 828.
An ordinance, to be sustained as an exercise of the police power, must tend in some degree toward the
accomplishment of the objects of safeguard or protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Williams v Chicago, 266 Ill 267, 107 NE 599; St. Louis v Dreisoerner, 243 Mo 217, 147 SW 998.
An act which has no tendency to affect or endanger the public in connection with health, safety, morals,
or general welfare, and which is entirely innocent in character, is not within the municipal police
power. Mt. Vernon v Julian, 369 Ill 447, 17 NE2d 52, 119 ALR 747.
You also need to look up the term "Misfeasance.
" Code enforcement officers have the duty to write tickets to enforce the law. However, most times
they do it in an improper and illegal manner. That is a criminal act known as misfeasance.
You also need to look up this: § 405 Indictment, information, or complaint; requisites; sufficiency of
allegations [58 Am Jur 2d
Problems? We have the answers.