The 2025 case Thompson v. Leon County, 2025 AP 4 (Leon Cnty. September 12, 2025) is a significant reminder to landlords, rural property owners, and investors that local governments maintain broad authority to perform visual inspections for code violations from publicly accessible vantage points—even where roads are privately maintained.
The case also reinforces that arguments invoking land patents, private road ownership, the Right to Farm Act, or criminal trespass statutes will not defeat a properly documented code case. This article provides a comprehensive review of the decision, including the underlying facts, legal arguments raised by the property owner, and the full scope of the court’s legal analysis.
Case Facts
Unpermitted Construction Complaint
On July 16, 2024, Leon County received a complaint alleging unpermitted construction on property located at 144 Thompson Circle, owned by the Ella Thompson Estate and represented by Joel Thompson. The County alleged a violation of:
- Chapter 5, Section 5-1.05, Leon County Code (performing construction without permits), and
- Chapter 10, Section 10-6.202(b), Leon County Code (erecting or altering a structure without required inspections).
The property sits on Thompson Circle, a privately owned and privately maintained U-shaped road connecting to Meridian Road.
Owner’s Claim: Private Road Bars Government Entry
Thompson argued early in the investigation that County staff had no legal access to Thompson Circle, asserting that because the road is private, government personnel were barred from entering it. County staff requested documentation of his ownership or exclusive rights to the roadway, but none was ever provided.
County property records showed:
- Neither the property owner nor Thompson owned Thompson Circle.
- The road had no gate, no lock, and no “No Trespassing” sign at its entrance.
- A nursery business open to the public sat immediately at the road entrance.
Code Enforcement Inspections
Code enforcement officers conducted repeated (7) visual inspections from the roadway from July 2024 – January 2025. At each inspection:
- The road was open and accessible.
- No “No Trespassing” signs were present at the entrance.
- Unpermitted construction was visually apparent from the roadway.
Attempt to Post Notice
Under F.S. 162.12, the code enforcement officers attempted to post a Notice of Violation on September 3, 2024. Thompson refused to allow posting and refused personal service. Deputies later served the notice and informed Thompson the road was not exclusively his and that his trespass warning could only apply to his residence, not the roadway.
Evidence in the Record
The Code Enforcement Board considered:
- Photographs showing the unpermitted structures, all taken from Thompson Circle.
- County records showing no permits had been pulled.
- Property appraiser classification of the parcel as “Miscellaneous Residential,” not agricultural.
Thompson attempted to submit:
- Undated photos showing a “No Trespassing” sign (not in the hearing record).
- A supposed “land patent” establishing exclusive rights (never submitted).
- Self-generated, non-compliant transcripts.
The Board found the property in violation. Thompson appealed.
Issues on Appeal
1. Land Patent Argument
He claimed a federal land patent granted him superior title allowing him to bar government access, prevent code enforcement entry, and supersede local code authority.
Court Response: No land patent was ever entered into the record before the Board, and appellate courts cannot consider evidence outside the record. The argument was stricken.
2. Fourth Amendment / Illegal Search
Thompson argued the County conducted illegal searches when traveling on a private road and observing construction without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment, USC.
Court Response: the court relied heavily on “plain view” doctrine:
Observations from publicly accessible vantage points are not searches under the Fourth Amendment.
- Officers did not enter curtilage, only viewed what was in plain sight from the road.
- Even privately owned roads can be open to public use, depending on facts.
The court found:
- No gate
- No signage
- Public-facing business at entrance
- Public traveled the road
Therefore, the road was held open to public use.
3. Posting of Notice Constituted Trespass
Thompson argued that posting a violation notice constituted criminal trespass under: F.S. 810.08 (trespass in a structure) and F.S. 810.09 (trespass on property)
Court Response: The statutes govern criminal trespass and would require prosecution, not civil enforcement. There was no evidence officers were charged, prosecuted, or adjudicated guilty of criminal trespass. Additionally, posting a notice is expressly authorized under F.S. 162.12(2)(b)(1). Federal cases also support that posting enforcement notices is not a search. Artes-Roy v. City of Aspen, 31 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 1994); Widgren v. Maple Grove Twp., 429 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2005).
4. Right to Farm Act (FS 823.14) Argument
Thompson argued the Florida Right to Farm Act:
- Preempted local enforcement
- Barred entry onto his “farm” land
- Increased trespass penalties
Court Response: This argument failed for several reasons:
- The property was classified as residential, not agricultural.
- The argument was not raised below, so it could not be considered on appeal.
- The Right to Farm Act does not exempt owners from permits or inspections.
5. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Thompson argued all evidence was illegal derivative evidence under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Court Response: Because there was no illegal search, this doctrine did not apply.
6. Missing Transcript and Failure to Follow Appellate Procedure
Thompson filed a homemade “transcript,” missing:
- Line numbers
- Page numbers
- Speaker identification
- Certification
- Proper formatting
He also failed to file a Rule 9.200(b)(5) statement of evidence.
Court Response: Without a proper record, an appellate court must affirm.
Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Code Enforcement Board’s order. Key conclusions:
- Thompson Circle was open to public use, so officers could enter it.
- Visual inspections from a public vantage point are not Fourth Amendment searches.
- Posting a violation notice is a lawful, non-trespass entry.
- The Right to Farm Act does not apply to residential land nor excuse permitting.
- No evidence supports land patent or exclusive-use arguments.
- No suppression of evidence was warranted.
- Appellant failed to file a proper transcript or statement of facts.
- No reversible error was shown.
Landlord Lessons
- A Private Road Does Not Necessarily Prevent Government Access
- Visual Observations Are Not Searches
- Posting Notices On-Site Is Lawfully Authorized
- Land Patents and “Sovereign Citizen-Style” Arguments do not work
- Right to Farm Act Rarely Applies
- Appeal is Technical—You Must Provide a Proper Record
- Suppression Arguments Are Limited in Code Cases