Ruling upholds searches of homes of welfare recipients

Source: Houston Chronicle/ L.A. Times

Nov. 26, 2007, 11:50PM
Ruling upholds searches of homes of welfare recipients
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — County welfare officers may conduct routine searches of the homes of welfare recipients to combat fraud under a ruling in a California case that the Supreme Court let stand Monday.

The justices refused to hear a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union, which contended that San Diego County's policy of requiring home searches without a warrant violated privacy rights.

Normally, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids police from searching a residence without a warrant. But the home inspections in San Diego County are different, judges said, because they do not seek evidence of a crime. Instead, they are intended to determine whether welfare recipients qualify for benefits.

The San Diego district attorney adopted a policy in 1997 under which applicants for welfare benefits must agree to a "walk through" of their residence while they are present. The inspectors check on whether the applicant has an eligible dependent child and has the amount of assets claimed. They also check on whether a supposedly "absent" parent lives at the residence. If residents refuse to permit a home visit, they can lose their benefits.

In its suit, the ACLU contended the mandatory home searches based on no evidence of wrong doing violated the Fourth Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5331061.html

what are they looking for ..'bales' of cash or dope.. stacks of gold bars, sacks of diamonds.. stalls of hookers, a bently in the car port

if they are searching they must have a list of what they are looking for

They often have something to hide.

.
It is way too easy to use 'Health And Welfare Inspections' as a tool to try to get around legal search requirements. 'Health And Welfare Inspections' are a valuable tool to help to determine whether welfare recipients qualify for benefits. This is acceptable.

The use of the hot-button word 'search' in this discussion, of course is designed to poison the well of the discussion. Inspection does not necessarily equate to search.
.

help for a short time

This story has literally made me sick to my stomach.

I'm sure they're also looking for valuable assets like an SUV or two, gold bars on the mantlepiece...etc...

Joking aside, I know some welfare recipients from my volunteer work, and one family has someone renting the back room to help make ends meet, which would cancel their meager welfare benefits and another family I know of more peripherally has a working BF in the house and he owns a brand new SUV, so the issue isn't black and white.

I live in a city where over 20% of our housing stock is subsidized- an anomaly- and there are plenty of $40-50thousand dollar vehicles in the parking lots. I even know someone who OWNS a house elsewhere in our county. They have a riverview pied-a-terr paid for by the government while there are plenty of needy folks living in decrepit slums where there is no accounting for those Section 8 checks that go directly to the slumlords. I had Section 8 tenants at one time, but I cared for my property/investment. It was amazing how little the Housing Authority cared about checking on the conditions. The tenant- who risks not finding a replacement home if they report unlivable conditions that may lead to condemnation- just needs to sign off without any inspection.

Although I agree with the need of such programs, I think that without proper accountability they are not helping the right people. Some of the rightwing's suspicions are correct but it's only because of this unaccountability NOT a bunch of lazy slackers living off the system.

trying to access anything. If you discourage people enough, they give up and go away.

Welfare rights activists fought hard in the 60's to get rid of the old "man under the bed" searches. This is demonetization of the poor, a colossal waste of resources, a violation of rights, and as the poster elsewhere said, a "first they came for..." warning of what this Court is going to do. How do all the excusers for the Dem acquiescence on Alito/Roberts like their SCOTUS now?

And as usual, some here are all too willing to support the abuse and criminalization of the poor.

While over at the uber-rich end, people are running around unregulated and unmonitored and billions of our taxpayer dollars goes missing all the time.

Hoarding the pennies while the hundred dollar bills are being burned to light illegally gotten Cuban cigars.

You pretty much summed it up. Who watches the watchers?

I work with a federally funded program of this sort that houses homeless disabled people. In my state we don't do "walk throughs" of tenants' units for the purpose of verifying who lives there; it is done (and it's a fairly intensive inspection) to verify that the unit meets HUD's habitability standards, once per year. Those inspectors are not charged with trying to verify who lives there, but if the saw a problem I would want them to report it. Tenants do have to provide written documentation of various kinds to prove they have custody of children living in the unit, stuff like that. Mental health case managers are involved, and when a question arises as to fraud (as it does occasionally), we ask the case manager to visit, as they're supposed to do anyway, and see who's living there.

But the point is extremely well made: HUD (and other agencies that assist poor people) watches it money almost down to the penny...and there really isn't that much money to go around anyway. And yet the military receives lavish budgets and the waste of a million here and there gets barely noticed by Pentagon bureaucracy. I love my work, but this aspect of it has always infuriated me to no end.

I'm not quite clear from the article whether these searches are done prior to the commencement of welfare benefits. If they are, it's really screwed up. And highly suspect, regardless of when they happen.

is not that accountable. See my posting (#55). Although I agree that accountability across the board is necessary, the unaccountability that I've observed actually hurts the poor by allowing people who are gaming the system to remain in limited housing that should be used by those who are really in need. I don't think any effort has been made to improve the system. I suspect in my city that this is done to appease the people who could make trouble while the more undereducated are thrown around to flounder.

I don't have much actual experience with HUD but see similar situations happening over in the tax audit division. The edict went out to auditors to spend less time auditing large tax returns and focus their attention on Earned Income Tax Credit. There is a lot fraud there the auditors are told.

"Watch the low incomers, they are certainly cheating. Leave the good old boys alone, they are the good guys."

Seems to be this administration's motto.

They begin with groups who are powerless, hated, and/or feared. The general population will cheer saying that 'something needs to be done about those people', little do they realize that what they are doing is cheering the destruction of the Constitution and their own civil liberties.

Is there a way to turn back from the path that we are on?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's a very frightening ruling.

It's a good idea to combat fraud in that area, but it's very unconstitutional to allow searches without warrants.

And if they have probable cause and can get a warrant, they can search. Which shows what this is all about.

This administration does anything it can to try to get searches without probable cause. Anything it can think of. Always, of course, directed at groups easy to use as scapegoats. Notice how they could search us all to make sure we aren't committing tax fraud. The only government bureaucracy most people have familiarity is the IRS. Which is why the IRS is efficient and why they never try this type of BS with it. No, it's always welfare, ICE, anything that only affects a group easy to demonize.

"But the home inspections in San Diego County are different, judges said, because they do not seek evidence of a crime."
I always considered Fraud to be a crime

But the 4th amendment doesn't say we are protected from searches without warrant only when the state agent is looking for evidence of a crime -- it says we are protected from warrantless searches from state agents, period. It is a violation of our 4th amendment right to privacy to allow a state agent to search through our homes where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, period.

The state has to procure a warrant from the judiciary where they present sufficient evidence of probable cause; they would have to show evidence that the to-be-searched are probably commiting welfare fraud. Since the whole 4th amendment was written in opposition of blanket warrants, saying fraud is committed by some recipients isn't ground to search all recipients. There is an applicable exception, though.

The 4th amendment (the courts have decided over the years) can be rendered moot if the to-be-searched freely consents to a search. If California's welfare laws state that one of the conditions of accepting aid from the state is consent to periodic "walkthroughs" of the recipient's residence, and the to-be-searched signs up anyway, then searches can occur. This wouldn't be a violation of the 4th amendment but would be consistent with a number of SCOTUS decisions about "consent".

What's wrong is the California law itself. It should be changed. (However, if they'd start searching corporate welfare recipients, too, I might dawdle before signing a new law!)

On edit: Upon thinking about this further, the "freely consent" principle really doesn't apply. If I'm desparate enough to have to reach out for welfare, I am not "freely" consenting; consent here is coerced -- "sign or starve!" is coercive, the to-be-searched is not left with a real choice. The SCOTUS is wrong again, once again siding with state and/or corporate power over the rights of the individual, snipping away at our liberties.

I know a few people who opted to enter what they call "the System" in San Diego when they had other options they considered less attractive but would have resulted in them been fed, clothed, and sheltered. The one I know best is one of seven adult children - At age 38 after a divorce, with no high job skills and two young children she was given the option to move to her home state to take care of her aging parents. She chose to stay here because of the climate, her friends, and the unappealing prospect of being a nursemaid for an indefinite period.

n/t

often there are other options, but a person needs to think of what's best for themselves and their family as well. In your friend's case, 1) her relationship with her parents may not have been a healthy one (as a caregiver myself, this job I've taken on would have been almost impossible for me to do 20 years ago because I still had some therapy to do around my parenting "issues"), and 2) having 2 young children AND taking care of her parents sounds self-sabotaging. I don't know how the woman could survive except with a lot of support. But then you say her friends, who would be her support network, live in San Diego.

...by the dean of social work. http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-5554857-8410367?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Making+Ends+Meet&x=8&y=24. In there after studying welfare recipients, this dean found that of the 150 families whom they studied, most had to "cheat" to survive with their kids ~ and of the 4 families who followed the rules faithfully all 4 families were convicted of child neglect. Cheating btw meant perhaps their parents helped them with childcare costs, or they lived with their mothers who helped out with the rent, clothes and food, or Ooooo REAL "cheating" ~ they went to school under the radar so they could get something that actually supported their families instead of living in poverty for the rest of their lives.

You cannot tell me this is not a punitive war on the poor ~ and that the middle class is next. In 1996 when Welfare DEformed was enacted (thanks to another elitist, Bill Clinton), it called parenting "doing nothing" it said working a McJob is "better" than parenting and forced millions of women to choose between working McJobs or actually BEING a parent. This has had a huge impact on middle class women and men who now actually believe that their children are a burden not a hope for our nation's future and that it is "better" for nobody to be home for our kids than to work some job who would fire them the moment they are considered not good for the bottom line. No law should be directed at just one segment of the population and if it is, it is the beginning of fascism.

This is disgusting.

Cat In Seattle

is getting shorter and shorter all the time.

When does the revolution start?:banghead:

Can we raid Halliburton's office and sieze documents without a warrant?

Bingo! And Blackwater, KB&R, Boeing, all drug companies, all research facilities, and any others to add to this long list????

Cat In Seattle

are they ever questioned-searched ?

In many corporate welfare cases, espcially in cities their welfare is predicated on certain criteria being met. Those can include certain numbers of employees being hired at a certain wage, investments in community projects, increased environmental controls, etc.. All of which are checked on regularly to determine compliance.

"Empire Zones," etc. Not to mention all the rest of what we know of Halleburton, et all.

:sarcasm:

So many millions more dollars affected, yet notice it's not such a problem that it requires so much investigation. They should be at the offices of the military industrial contractors doing the same thing if their excuse for it were valid.

welfare fraud, and demand that all corporations receiving welfare funding on taxpayer money be subject to random warrantless searches without prior notice.

If corporations refuse to submit to these searches, they should lose their welfare benefits, and if they are found guilty of welfare fraud they should lose their biz license and be subject to criminal prosecution.

conducts these searches.
-------------

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid.

Failure to submit to the searches, which can last an hour, disqualifies applicants from assistance.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnMj7R5_WbqmMp7uS7uezAq3lfIgD8T5E49O0

-------------

This is just wrong on so many levels.

Coming soon to a social housing project near you.

now the only investigations that take place is if there is a complaint.because of the increase of recipients the welfare office does not have enough people to investigate fraud in the programs.

It's pretty amazing.

that corporate welfare recipients will be subjected to the same?

without a warrant to be sure they are not guilty of tax evasion, oh - I mean, to be sure they actually "qualify" for the tax bracket they claim... I see no problem with this idea. Well, no problem other that the fact that it is exceptionally unconstitutional, not to mention a foolish use of government resources.

Yeah, let's conduct a few unannounced and warrantless searches through the homes of the people who think this law is a good idea. We'll see how long it stays on the books then.

If they signed a document granting the legal authorities permission to conduct such searches, have at it. All others will need a warrent.

We'll just withhold their tax refunds until they sign the document granting authorities the right to the search so we can be sure they quality for the money, ie, to be sure they aren't hiding assets, etc. If they still don't want to sign the document, I suppose we could freeze all of their liquid assets to gain compliance. It wouldn't really be unfair, since it would have the same effect as withholding the poor folks' desperately needed daily living expenses (via welfare).

Fair is fair.

welfare fraud when there is the ever constant threat of terra, terra, terra! :sarcasm:

I wonder if they will do such searches of Halliburton's offices, to make sure there is no fraud in those government contracts. I'm sure they'll be right on that fraud possibility. :sarcasm:

Well isn't that just a bone waiting to be tossed to the Repugs. I can see it now on all the radio talk shows how Government is using programs to take people rights away. Here is a pillar of Progressive thought, the welfare system, and our own people who run it are using it to pick on people who are down on there luck.

Sarcasm obviously. But seriously, this is yet another case of the poor getting royally FUCKED - many times they are fucked by high interest rates and excessive credit card fees, but this time it's by a conservative Supreme Court. I hope people are paying attention - this is what happens when you elect (so called) "conservatives" as pResident - who then appoint conservative (Republican) judges. These people are heartless and have no compassion for the poor in any way. Yet they feel perfectly fine about wasting BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq for no good reason at all. :(

...middle class people, and anyone who could be accused of being "enemy state" could be next. This is beyond the pale with these people ~ they need to be impeached. Now!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

Landlords in California are required to give 24 hours' notice before making a non-emergency inspection, but if they do so they are legally entitled to check up on the condition of the property and how well the tenant is maintaining it. My last (and I mean very last ever) landlord often violated that rule by showing up to do maintenance on landscaping. Once he showed up with a dude with a machete on the day after Thanksgiving to trim some trees. I was having a garden party. His presence disrupted my quiet enjoyment of the property.

The welfare inspections are neither random nor unexpected. It's part of the deal. The ruling may say that "unannounced" visits are permitted, but IN PRACTICE that is not how it's done. Inspectors can't go into an unoccupied home, so they call ahead to make sure someone is home and avoid wasting time.

"This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor," said Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the dissenters.

This is just one of many ways that being poor sucks. Welfare recipients I know are much more concerned with the indignities and inconvenience of having to use check-cashing services, of being forced to buy foods and supplies in costly small quantities, and the enormous load of paperwork required to keep their cases active.

BTW - People who live in subsidized housing are subjected to annual inspections even when there is no allegation of problems or wrongdoing either.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

their mortgages have a clause authorizing such searches. Otherwise a warrent is required.

for Blackwater to come in and take you away for not complying with the standards of the regime. Watch them grind their boot-heels in your copy of the sacred Constitution as they drag you away.

You can say "but this is just for welfare fraud."

I say "Give them an inch here and an inch there and watch your Democracy crumble before your eyes."

that San Diego County Dept of Human Services has a contract in place for Blackwater to do the visits is?

I'm just looking at possible scenarios in the near future if something like a national martial law is ever put in place by this administration. I'm just seeing that "legal" allowances are being lined up for that possibility if our rights continue to be dismantled and our Democracy continues to slide into a fascist state.

In their eyes, everything belongs to them. Let the corporations decimate this nation, destroy the middle class. But, god forbid, a few scraps go to the poor.

Fuckers.

This is disgusting. REALLY disgusting.

This is disgusting. :puke: :puke:

Are we saying that:

Landlords should not have the right of a periodic announced walk through?
Social services should not be able to check on the situation of a foster child placement or a possible abuse situation?
Adoption agencies should not screen the home situation of potential adoptive parents
Life insurance companies should not have the right to examine medical records or check bloodwork?
Banks should not be allowed to examine the financial records of those they are loaning to?
Those applying for disability should not have medical exams to prove their claims?

Why are people turning this into a rich vs poor issue? And with such anger?

When I lived in Wisconsin, some people on the welfare rolls in Illinois would drive up each month to crash at a friend or relative's home to "prove" their WI residence, thus collecting welfare from both states. There does exist abuse in any system and it is reasonable to expect the agencies providing assistance to verify claims made. It is not like the police are crashing in unannounced looking for evidence of any crime they can find. This is an announced, accompanied walk through looking for a few specific things to verify that our tax dollars are not being fraudulently taken.

I agree that the abuse in the welfare system is small potatoes compared to the white collar pilfering that goes on, but that means that other laws need to enforced or enacted to better control such abuse. These are separate issues.

...in that state they found so much fraud that LESS THAN 30% of the faith based money even made its way to the recipients. A welfare group embarrassed a punitive YWCA organization into giving money back because they are downright scrooge and when it came to granting childcare money to poor working mothers, but they used money to throw THEMSELVES an $80,000 party to pat themselves on the back.

That state is well known for its demeaning of the poor. I would not brag about living there and what anyone, especially in the state where they depend on this unregulated money for their own coffers.

My 2 cents.
P.S. Try reading some of those citizen's stories in Welfare Warriors, a group that has had to fight tooth and nail just for crumbs for mothers; http://welfarewarriors.org/CURRENT_MWV.htm. They are desperate in that state, thanks to your wonderful ex-governor who hated poor women enough to help write Wefare DEformed with the Heritage Foundation ~ and they especially hate women of color.

Cat In Seattle

I believe that welfare fraud on the part of the indigent recipients is the exception rather than the rule, and if some get a bit extra through some clever, if not always above board means, it is small potatoes and may make the difference between drowning and survival, or between mere existence and some small buffer of comfort. I deal with welfare recipients every day professionally and have friends receiving benefits. I count my blessings that I am not in the same position.

I wasn't aware of the administrative abuses in WI, but thank you for the link; I will look through it their page.

My issue is with fraud and honesty in general, and on any level. There should be a system in place to verify claims for any recipient of anything. One that respects one's right to privacy, but which gets the necessary information. But when people start to blame the rich for getting away with things, people should also give them the benefit of the doubt and consider that those abusers are the exceptions rather than the rule. Accountability should be in play here as well, but not the presumption of guilt or privilege.

Now I wasn't bragging about living in WI, though Madison was a great place to live for 6 years, and I would recommend it to any progressive.

...I have heard that there are "pockets" of progressives in WI and it is good to have some sensible non-elitist people around.

I would say "honesty" is a difficult word. When you are on welfare, you may have to "cheat" to survive. Somewhere in this thread,I mentioned the book written by a dean of social work at Texas University called "Making Ends Meet" where they studied 150 welfare families. All but 4 families "cheated" meaning that maybe they got help from their parents under the table, or lived with a boyfriend who helped with the expenses, or worked under the table. Of the 4 families who followed all the rules? all 4 of them were tried for child neglect by child protective services. You cannot live on that income, it is almost impossible without help.

I agree honesty is important but if you are making a choice between your kid's welfare and telling some case manager the truth: Like that your sister gave you $150.00 (which you are required to report but didn't) to help pay to fix your half dead car. You did not tell them because you were afraid you would get kicked off welfare for now they consider your sister a "resource" and that she should support you. Almost as bad could be that you get docked $200.00 from your $440 check, half of which you use for gas and supplies and the other half you use for heat and lights. Which honesty would you pick? I would say you would be more honest if you did not say one word about the money you hid under your mattress that you are trying to save for a car repair so you can get to your crappy, low-paying, exploitive job. Because if they take what little it is away, your kid freezes in a dark home and you can't even cook him the top ramen you saved for his dinner. See?

I think you deserve a truthful answer back and I can tell you from my own experience as a welfare advocate, this stuff happens all the time ~ and the policy makers are well aware that their rules do not even make sense often and are almost impossible to keep. Trying to survive happens because of the horribly demeaning System and WAY below poverty income welfare is, so it is about survival, not cheating the system. Rich people who do not need it cheat all the time and they are even commended for it if they have a clever enough accountant and lawyer. Most poor are horrified that they would have to do these things as most people want to have integrity and be trustworthy, it matter to them because that is about all they have. But you quickly learn not being completely honest sometimes is the only way.

Thanks again for yout thoughtful response. That was nice.

Love
Cat

have very specific requirements for advance notice. Searches used to require a warrant issued on probable cause. This is a very serious infringement and will be challenged.

or just don't have enough information. It states,

"The San Diego district attorney adopted a policy in 1997 under which applicants for welfare benefits must agree to a "walk through" of their residence while they are present. The inspectors check on whether the applicant has an eligible dependent child and has the amount of assets claimed. They also check on whether a supposedly "absent" parent lives at the residence. If residents refuse to permit a home visit, they can lose their benefits."

I don't quite understand where the serious infringement is. If the ACLU is against something, I usually am as well (I am a member), but perhaps you can explain to me what is wrong with verification of anyone receiving benefits, whether it be welfare, disability, insurance, loans, a foster child, etc.

If you are worried that the police are breaking down the door in the middle of the night and sweeping the place for any criminal infringement, then I agree that this wrong. But it sounds that this is an announced visit, with an accompanied inspection for a few very specific things. Help me understand...

The first sentence says "search", not "walk through" and those are two very different things. As a landlord, I am entitled to walk throughs but not searches, for example.

This link has far more detail the the link in the OP:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/searchseizure/10278prs20000724.html?s_src=RSS

thank you for posting that link. Whereas I understand the why's of the efforts to eliminate fraud, the methods are paramount. If there is no suspicion, one should not be subject to such type of investigation. Best would be to be good documentors and investigate when red flags come up; leave the rest alone...

the pockets of the rich from war profiteering and corporate welfare.

administering the program. It was over 60%, 30 years ago. By now it is probably higher. So basically, the welfare program employees need the recipients as much as the recipients need to program.

Just like the correctional officers need the inmates. Thta is one way that the inmates become trapped in the system.

These are a couple of our few remaining industries.

anything an officer notices as he/she walks through your home is admissable as evidence in a criminal trial, as I read it. If they're going to do this, they MUST have an exclusionary rule, or else you're destroying the Fourth Amendment, and the checkups will become a pretext to search homes without warrants.

By the logic of the judge the Avon lady has the right to search your home to see what cosmetics and soaps you use.

I posted the same thing over 7 hours earlier. Here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2351695

"Normally, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids police from searching a residence without a warrant. But the home inspections in San Diego County are different, judges said, because they do not seek evidence of a crime. Instead, they are intended to determine whether welfare recipients qualify for benefits."

The Fourth Amendment

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.

___

Notice that nowhere in there it says that searches are allowable if they're not related to searching for crime-related materials. It says that people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless a warrant is given upon probable cause. If an official suspects that someone is being a welfare cheat, they should prove Probable Cause, get a warrant, and THEN search the premises. Then the search would be legal.

The Judge messed up on this ruling and I hope someone appeals it.

I guess you've never lived next door to a Section 8 house or in a neighborhood with Section 8 houses. I have had the unfortunate experience.

The recipients of Section 8 usually are getting 100% funding for housing, food and utility bills. In the neighborhood I live in, you can be from Mars, drive down the streets and point out the Section 8 houses. Nestled among the well kept homes and yards are cesspools with trash all over the place, drug dealing, dog fighting and employable but non-working people hanging out in the driveway all night screaming and hollering. At the first and the middle of the month, the drive up drug store is open, bringing in people who don't belong in the neighborhood. Buyers don't even have to get out of their cars! In the summertime the stench of dog poop wafts throught the neighborhood and the pitiful crying of abused dogs rent the air. Then comes this magic week once a year when the house and property is suddenly transformed to almost looking like the rest of the neighborhood. Trash is picked up, dog poop is hosed down and the dogs given water, the lawn is mowed (by the mother which was on disability as well and so disabled she couldn't even bring in grocerys from the car, the derelict cars removed and peace and quiet prevails! What causes this magic week? Inspection. After the inspection is over, the magic spell breaks and voila! The cesspool is back.

The vast majority of Section 8 in my neighborhood are freeloaders .. yes there are a few who need it and are helped by it and not all Section 8 recipients keep their free homes like cesspools. It took me 3 years of constant writing, phoning, picture and video taking to get the drug dealing, dog fighting freeloaders off my street. A mother with a 16 year old daughter and her two, now adult brothers who would disappear during inspection. They had been there for 10 years while their neighbors huddled in their homes in fear. These people had been robbed, threatened and harassed by these freeloaders. They had tried and tried to get something done but gave up when 911 operators would tell them they they were the problem not the tenants. Where are the police you say? They don't care as long as no one is waving guns around.

Folks, public housing is paid with your taxes and you have absolutely no say whatsoever who gets to move in next to you. They need to have UNANNOUNCED inspections every 2 months and allow neighbors to voice their opinions on what their Section 8 neighbors are like.

X

but the Constitution does not change....no matter who pays the bills. I never saw the qualifier "unless your home is paid by public taxes" in the 4th amendment.

Just because you receive some sort of federal aid (whether it be welfare, Pell Grants, business loans, etc.) does not mean the government can intrude on your rights or your living space.

And for the record, I work in a school SMACK in the middle of a neighborhood like the one you described. And I am bothered by a lot of lazy people in it, including welfare cheats. Doesn't mean I acquiesce to the government forcing its way into people's homes.

First they came for the homeless...then they came for the Section 8ers...then they came for protesters...then they came for moderates...and then they came for me, but there was no one left.

Sound familiar?

I don't have to like them to stand up for the rights to be free from governmental home invasions.

And as a side note, don't make it sound like living in Section 8 housing is a "nice gig". Those freeloaders are NOT having the time of the day. I'm sure that if given the choice, they'd like to be doing MUCH better. So let's not be jealous or envious of their "freeloading". It still pays a lot better to actually study and go work.