Court Won't Review San Diego Home Hunts

"The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600765.html?hpid=sec-nation

How can the court system allow this? I'm not sure which feeling grips me the most, outrage or sadness.

That doesn't prevent a ruling in future.

And given the current makeup of the court, it's probably a good bet that they DIDN'T take it.

Declining to take the case tells me they don't see anything wrong with it (bad news).

However, considering how right-wing the court is if they did take the case they (majority of Justices) would likely applaud the searches (worse news)

Knocking down our Bill of Rights, one disenfranchised group at a time.

to come here when I read these stories. And they spent more than a decade and just about every last cent they had to do it.

They left everything and everyone. They dove head first into a new culture, they tried to learn it and to contribute to it.

And now our tax money is funding illegal raids on helpless people. Makes me so proud. :sarcasm:

like it's something new around here?

See how much they have to be thankful for?

accepting the housing?

The Supreme Court didn't rule here, though--they just declined to take the case at all...
http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000078/Summary07-11.pdf

On edit--this is from the ACLU, before the ruling. It does have to do with conditions for occupancy. Like it or not, it's cut and dried. People CAN refuse to live there--the alternative, of course, might be homelessness, but they can still maintain the whole "choice" aspect:

Sanchez et al. v. County of San Diego – San Diego County’s Project 100% requires all people applying or reapplying for welfare benefits in the county to submit to an unannounced search of their homes as a precondition to their receipt of aid. The ACLU has challenged this program, claiming that the suspicionless intrusion into the homes of welfare applicants violates their constitutional rights to due process, to privacy, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. After a federal district judge ruled that the home search requirement was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, a panel of which upheld Project 100% over a strong dissent that substantially adopted the ACLU’s position. We have asked the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. That petition is pending.

The argument is that if you don't want them searching your--actually--THEIR place, you don't have to take the public housing, more or less.

It's not a bait and switch. You have to agree to these conditions up-front.

It's similar to the rules in many homeless shelters--no booze, can't be drunk, no drugs, can't bring odd shit into the facility, shakedowns can be required or out you go, etc.

It certainly does make the situation sufficiently onerous so that people are motivated to get off the public dole as quickly as they can manage.

By the same legal logic, any renter can also be subject to search at any time.

If Boyfriend is eating the kids' Cheerios, then the kids aren't getting the nutrition that the aid is shelled out to provide.


I rather doubt they've set up this system to be onerous, mean assholes. They're simply trying to be decent stewards of the taxpayer dollars.


And on edit--if you are an "ordinary renter" you say "Fuck you, I am not signing that document, and I am not renting from your sorry ass!"

This has to do with the acceptance of aid.

It is a negotiation, for sure. And on another thread, a DUer and I both noticed that the writer of this article flip flops between "search" and "walk through" -- which are two really different things, right?

And in my experience, whether the public agency people intend it or not -- likely they don't but are simply overwhelmed by disappearing budgets and staffing -- a climate of antagonism does arise which isn't helpful to their clients.

to gather evidence to accuse you of a crime.

No criminal charges will accrue to you as a result of these inspections.

They are there to inspect to make sure you're eligible for aid. If you're renting out those back two rooms at three hundred a month each, then your aid package is going to be affected by that income. If your boyfriend is living in the house, eating the babies' WIC eggs and beans, that's a problem too. Running an illegal daycare when you claim to be unemployed? That's an issue, too.

And that 'climate of antagonism' that you decry has a use, like it or not. A properly run, supportive Welfare to Work program, that provides education and training, child care assistance, and job search help DOES get people off the dole and making their own way. Most people don't want a permanent handout, and if a guy coming around making sure you aren't fencing shit out of your house every so often serves as a small motivator, well, that's all to the good.

Second, I tend to think that people learn better in supportive environments. So no, I don't see antagonism as being particularly helpful. Good boundaries, yes. Antagonism, fear, dread, anxiety, not at all.

piece of paper if you do not agree with the conditions. That's Contracts 101. It's pretty simple.

agrees with my take on this matter.

Where were all those contract lawyers during this case? where were their compelling amicus briefs?

Didn't all of our ancestors ditch countries like that?

services from the county.

It's not just those in subsidized housing.

You take the services, you contract with the county to permit the home visit.

Welfare applicants have to agree to the unannounced visits in order to receive any aid. If they refuse they can be denied benefits.

The aim is to verify that the applicants are eligible for welfare. The investigators look into medicine cabinets, open closets and drawers and can look into closed closets or drawers if the applicant agrees. ...The appeals court relied on a 1971 Supreme Court decision which held that home visits to verify eligibility for benefits are not searches, because the purpose of the search is not criminal investigation.

The majority also ruled that Project 100% served an important governmental interest of verifying eligibility for welfare and preventing fraud. Because the inspections take place during normal business hours, and because applicants are told they will be subject to them, the appeals court said they were legal.

...The litigation has trimmed some parts of the program. When it first began investigators could also make contact with an applicant's neighbor, employer or the their childrens' schoolteacher, said Isaacson. These “collateral contacts” now can't be done without the applicant consenting to them in writing in advance.

Also, the searches can't be used to verify a persons' eligibility for federal food stamps, he said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071126-1752-bn26welfare.html

These inspections are not searches for evidence to be used in a criminal proceeding. The constitution protects against search and seizure in criminal proceedings.

this incursion on our civil rights. The authoritarians barely need to move, we leap to defend them.

otherwise. It just isn't.

if the terms of the contract are abusive.

Good grief. You think they pulled this program out of their asses? Just to "fuck with" people?

Welfare to work WORKS. And home inspections go a long way towards preventing child abuse and death, although there are still too many kids being killed by "boyfriends" who lack patience or find the kid to be a pain in the ass.

Good grief, my granny. I've been advocating for poor people for many years. There is more destruction, negligence and even deaths caused by bs just like this, pulled right out of bureaucatic ass than I can even remember to enumerate.

No, I don't think they're doing this to fuck with people. Because "they" don't care enough about people to fuck with them. Is that as clear as possible?

And the random anecdote about bad boyfriends is just about the worst stereotype out there. At least I know where you're coming from.

Poverty is not a crime. Welfare recipients are not de facto felons. They have civil rights and you know, this ruling will be struck down because it's bullshit. It's unconstitutional.

Closer to forty.

And now, we get the "Big Bad Government" argument. Ooooh, the government doesn't CARE!!!!

You know, that's a load of steaming horseshit. Tiresome, too.

I tell ya what 'lack of care' is. Lack of care is women sitting on the cold sidewalks for ten hours a day waiting for a head of cabbage, a few potatoes, and a moth-eaten blanket from the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, because there was NO OTHER CHARITY.

If you did as much work with the poor as you claim, you'd know that the "random anecdote" is anything other than RANDOM. Children are murdered and abused at alarming rates by "boyfriends." And poverty increases the odds a hundredfold. These same "boyfriends" eat the eggs and peas the WIC allowance provides for the infants and toddlers.

Of course, you'd never ask "Where was the government?" when a little kid is beaten to death in a welfare home. You'd NEVER ask "Where were the social workers?" when a child is abused in a residence getting government aid....naaaah, that would interfere with the FREEDOM of the welfare recipient and that beat-down boyfriend!

:eyes:

I've provided cites throughout this thread to prove my case. You've provided nothing but drama, dudgeon and half-baked opinion.

It's not unconstitutional, and the only bullshit here is the arguments that you are shopping. You have a weak understanding of the 4th amendment if you think an inspection for eligibility for services, with NO "search and siezure" involved, no criminal charges, that is agreed to by both parties in ADVANCE, in exchange for cash on the barrel (quid pro quo), is 'unconstitutional.'

See, when you AGREE, it ain't UNREASONABLE. They don't come knocking on the door during the night--ONLY during business hours--ENTIRELY reasonable. And most importantly, no one is FORCED into this agreement. You don't like the terms? Turn on your heel and go.

You don't like the conditions the government requires? Why, there ARE options. Go to the fundy CHURCH for aid, where there AREN'T any of those onerous "condidtions." Oh, you may be expected to show up for services four or more times a week...but what the heck, eh? At least someone won't be coming through your place, making sure your boyfriend isn't running a little business out of your house, and eating the yoghurt and vegetables the WIC money bought for the toddlers.

My last lease had a clause in it that allowed the owner to inspect our apartment with 24 hours of advanced notice.

is carefully guaranteed. So, your landlord has to follow some pretty explicit rules for how and when s/he inspects the unit.

If they're falling on hard times and need a welfare bridge to get by, even a home OWNER will get this sort of search.

My comparison was to privacy violations to a welfare recipient and a renter.

/grammar

takes a powder and leaves a SAH mother alone with a houseful of kids.

Or a breadwinner who gets sick without insurance and loses that job. Or a breadwinner who is downsized in an economically malnourished region.

And they DO end up on welfare.

And they agree to the inspections to get the checks until they can get back on their feet.

This law doesn't single out people living in rentals, living in section 8/subsidized housing, or living in state owned/managed housing projects.

It applies across the board to anyone receiving the benefit. The requirement accompanies the BENEFIT, not where you happen to be living. If you're living at the YMCA, or the No-Tell Motel, it's the same deal.

get inspections, but not people in SEC 8 housing?

Utterly depriving people of both privacy and dignity is a known motivator.

just refuse to enter into the agreement.

Like it or not, it is "voluntary."

I also see SoCalDem's point. If 'the boyfriend' is eating the little kids' eggs and beans, he needs to get gone. If he needs welfare himself, he can jump through the appropriate hoops and get it.

Apparently, it IS a known motivator, otherwise, I doubt they'd add that layer onto the provision of aid, just for kicks to "fuck" with people. You surely cannot believe, with the shortages of personnel in the system, that social workers run around nosing through people's houses just for the sheer "fun" of it. They're looking for boyfriends who aren't contributing to the welfare of the children, perhaps abusing the women and/or endangering the children, and perhaps even engaging in illegal activity.

If you know that you can't lay back in your house with your boyfriend eating your kid's food, it might motivate you to improve your own circumstances, or find a better boyfriend, one who will contribute to the welfare of the children.

Could you tell me, if WIC women get foodstamps with which they can buy those amazing sugared cereals, how the inspectors will know what bought which?

Or if the boyfriend is an out of work brother? Is that also not allowed? Will they inspect the sheets for semen stains?

Sorry. Cops tearing up the apartment searching for...whatever...is a little too close to my grandmother's stories of czarist Russia.

Poverty means no constitutional rights. Got it. What is sickening is that I got it on DU.

proving who he is. Anymore than a mother or grandmother would be a problem. So long as they weren't eating the food intended for the children.

Of course, children living in poverty are NEVER abused by 'boyfriends.' How silly of these nosy social workers to be concerned for the welfare of the children.

Jose Calderon, 20, was sentenced Nov. 1 to up to 15 years in prison for the death of 4-year-old Quachaun Brown in New York City. Prosecutors said Calderon beat the boy several times with his fists, a belt, a plastic bat, and struck the child's head against a wall in their Bronx apartment in January 2006. The mother, Aleisha Smith, pleaded guilty earlier to second-degree manslaughter for failing to get her son to a hospital promptly.

_Phillip Guymon, 30, of Murray, Utah, was sentenced in October to five years in prison after admitting he threw his girlfriend's 2-year-old son, Jayden Cangro, across a room last year, killing the child. Guymon initially told police the child had fallen out of bed and later said the boy fell down stairs. He eventually acknowledged he had become frustrated and threw the boy when he wouldn't go to bed.

_Samuel Corona, 34, was arrested on a murder charge in September in connection with the fatal beating of 6-year-old Oscar Jimenez Jr. in San Jose, California, in February. Police say Corona and the boy's mother then took the body to Phoenix, where authorities later discovered it buried beneath concrete bags and soil. The mother, Kathryn Jimenez, who says she was often abused by Corona, has pleaded guilty to lesser charges for her role as an accessory.

_Donell Parker, 23, has been charged with murder in the April death of 4-year-old Cameron Smith, who allegedly was punched and whipped with a belt over the course of two days in suburban Chicago. The boy's mother, Lavada Smith, had left her three children with Parker while she was being deployed to Iraq with the Army National Guard.

Derek Chappell, 25, was convicted in August of the 2004 drowning death of 2-year-old Devon Shackleford in Mesa, Arizona, and faces a possible death sentence. Prosecutors said Chappell committed the murder in an apartment complex swimming pool because he considered Devon an obstacle to his relationship with the boy's mother.

_Rene Barrios, 26, faces a first-degree murder charge in the Oct. 26 death of a 2-week-old boy, Jaden Encinas, in Tucson, Arizona. Police said the baby appeared to have died from blunt-force trauma.

_Kerry Joe Smith, 21, of Oklahoma City, has been charged with sexually abusing and murdering Olivia Scroggins, who died in August a few weeks before her second birthday. Her mother, Wendy Scroggins, 22, has been charged with permitting child abuse.

_Alvaro Andres Ramos-Cardenas, 24, faces a murder charge in the July death of 13-month-old Peter Blanco in Tucson, Arizona. Police say the baby was abused after being left by his mother in the care of Ramos-Cardenas.

_Traveles Bullard, 21, of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, faces a murder charge in the July death of 9-month-old Jermauri Craig, whose body was found at a motel where Bullard was caring for him while the mother was at work. Police said Jermauri suffered a skull fracture, bruising around both eyes and bite marks to the side of the face and arm.... (more...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/19/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Child-Abuse-Cases.php


"If you're looking at abuse overall, the natural parents are far more likely to be the perpetrators than anyone else," said Kevin Kirkpatrick, a spokesman for the Chicago-based Prevent Child Abuse America.

But, according to Walter Smith, director of Family Resources Inc., a local child-abuse prevention agency, ."it's very common, either because of a breakdown in attachment, or failure to create one" for live-in lovers to become involved.

"They don't love the kid," said Martin Daly, author of a number of Canadian studies on the issue. "A lot of stepmothers and boyfriends regard the kid as undesired baggage who they wish had never been born. The child remains a resented nuisance at best."

Daly is the co-author of a 1999 Canadian study that found that an American child living with one genetic parent and one step-parent or a live-in companion was 100 times as likely to suffer fatal abuse as a child living with two genetic parents.

And a number of other studies, in fact, strongly suggest that children being cared for by an unrelated adult are at far greater risk of injury or death than may have been previously believed.

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010426boyfriend2.asp

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along, now!

Because poor people do that sort of thing.

They don't deserve constitutional protections.

It's a volutary contract. VOLUNTARY.

If they don't want the oversight, they don't avail themselves of the services.

Do you think foster parents should be free of inspections, too? That it's a violation of their "rights" to accept money from the state and care for children without any oversight?

You seem to think these social workers are taking joy in this duty. They do it for a plainly good reason.

But hey, they're "just" children at risk, here. Nothing to concern yourself with.

And statistics show, sorry to tell you, that poor people ARE at risk for this behavior, specifically, young uneducated males DO do this sort of thing at a much higher level than the general population.

But hey, to hell with that--what's more important, not preventing a situation where young children might be beaten or killed, or "offending" someone? After all, they're 'just' children.

Funny, when this sort of abuse happens, the cries of "Where were the social workers?" ring loudest...

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,490 child fatalities in 2004. This translates to a rate of 2.03 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect was a contributing factor.

The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS has increased slightly during the last several years from 1.96 per 100,000 in 2001, to 1.98 in 2002, 2.00 in 2003, and 2.03 in 2004. It is likely that the slight increase in fatalities reported by NCANDS is due to improved reporting by some of the States.

While most data on child fatalities come from State child welfare agencies, States are also able to draw on other data sources. In 2004, 18.4 percent of fatalities were reported through the Agency File, which includes fatalities reported by health departments and fatality review boards. This coordination of data collection contributes to better estimates.

Many researchers and practitioners believe child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are still underreported. Studies in Colorado and North Carolina have estimated that as many as 50 to 60 percent of child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect are not recorded as such (Crume, DiGuiseppi, Byers, Sirotnak, Garrett, 2002; Herman-Giddens, Brown, Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, et al., 1999).

...There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently, the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s, without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect.

if assistance is needed. The burden should be on the government to actually demonstrate that a welfare recipient is cheating, and the right to privacy and dignity are not rights that are compromised by the process of receiving welfare assistance. So, yes, I totally object to this crap.

assistance, to INCLUDE home visits and inspections, mandated training, to include PARENTING classes, and participation in Welfare to Work schemes. There ARE 'strings attached.' It's not a Cash Giveaway.

Your post is contradictory in the extreme, too.

On the one hand, you say "the burden should be on the government to demonstrate that a welfare recipient is cheating" and then, you tie their hands and make it difficult if not impossible for them to so do.

How are they supposed to do it? Mind reading??? Educated guesses? A "look in their eye?"

One more time--if you don't want your home searched, don't take the assistance.

It's a quid pro quo. I am really not surprised that this didn't go all the way to the top. It's been shot down at every turn, in one way or another, since the early 70s.

search and seizure. And if a recipient objects to an inspection, then the government should have to get a warrant to inspect.

Are you suggesting that caseworkers seeking a warrant for inspections is an impossible task/"tying their hands"?

Welfare is indeed a cash giveaway, and yes there are restrictions, but like a contract, those restrictions can not mandate that recipients relinquish their constitutional rights.

no criminal charges as a result of searches--the worst that can happen is that someone is declared ineligible for assistance because, say, they're running an 'under the table' business out of their home, or taking in boarders, or what have you, and not declaring the income.

Therefore, the 4th amendment argument cannot and does not stand.

The recipient has already AGREED to inspection before the inspector shows up.

They agree in writing, ahead of time, to submit to random inspections during business hours as a condition of receiving aid. Christ, try reading the whole thread before you jump in.

So, you're wrong.

If a woman with kids is on assistance, and she has a "boyfriend" living with her, he is gettting benefit of her assistance, and if he's not working, that means that the kids are getting LESS..

It may not be nice to say it, but that's often how it works.. I used to have to tell women all the time, that they could NOT get Honey Nut Cheerios with their WIC vouchers...and many times they would say "my boyfrined doesn't LIKE regular Cheerios".. I would "gently" remind them that the WIC vouchers were to help them feed their KIDS...not their boyfriend..

We would also see the "formula switchers".. Their scam was to use the voucher for 2 cases of formula every month (when I was working, they cost $35.75 a case).. then a few days later, they would come in and "exchange" the formula.. For a while, the store would give them a gift certificate and then they would use the gift certificate on non-WIC items.. We finally figured out that "the doctor was not changing the baby's formula",and this was a way to tuern baby formula into junk foods..( they would do this at a very busy time, and would get the gift certificate because we had a very lazy assistant manager in charge..

There's nothing more dispicable than some clown who screws, fathers, and prances.

And cadging boyfriends; well, that's almost as bad--worse, when they're taking food outta the kids' mouths.

And what part of W and I in "WIC" includes B for boyfriend? What sort of parent would put "Boyfriend" in front of "Child?" That's rhetorical, those questions...but wow.

Good grief, you must have the patience of a saint.

Trying' to get Honey Nut Cheerios, who do they think they are?

Poor people don't need Fourth Amendment rights, right?

Those cereals cost more, and are less nutritious..

WIC vouchers are very specific..no substitutions.. These women also had food stamps, so if the really wanted the opther cereals, they could use their food stamps..jut not the WIC vouchers.

Where did I say ANYTHING about cadillacs:wtf:..
(yer barking up the WRONG tree)

If the boyfriends are eating this stuff, they're taking it 'out of the mouths of babes:'

WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

WIC foods are intended to “supplement” participants’ food intakes and should be consumed along with other wholesome foods needed for a balanced diet. Each of the WIC foods is rich in one or more of the following nutrients: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C, which tend to be low in the diets of the population WIC serves.

Here are the foods--it's basic stuff, formula, juice, cereal, eggs, dried beans, that kind of stuff:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgtable.HTM

too many repuke appointments.

Your Money or Your Rights

http://x-judge.blogspot.com/2007/07/your-money-or-your-rights.html


Adam Liptak reports in the N.Y. Times (7/16/07) that welfare recipients and applicants in San Diego are subject to unannounced visits and searches to assure that they are not defrauding the government. In other words, those "who want public benefits must give up their privacy", and apparently that means their rights under the Fourth Amendment regarding searches and seizures. Wow, what a great idea!

If that is the law and I were a law enforcement officer, I would be so ecstatic I wouldn't know where to begin. First, I think I would be tempted to bust into the offices of the defense contractors to see what evidence I could find of over-billing. But wait, maybe barge into those oil companies with their large subsidies to see whether or not there is any evidence of price fixing. But hold on, what about the cigarette companies and their tobacco subsidies and the possibility of gazing at those scientific reports they have and comparing them with what they have been saying for years to the public about their products.

The welfare investigators who happen to come across evidence of other crimes pass that information on to the appropriate law enforcement agency. So if any of the above corporate searches don't hit their original targets, maybe we can still find some tax evasion or bribes just by rummaging through their books in the same way the welfare investigators rummage through drawers looking for men's underwear.

However, the corporations receiving tax benefits or subsidies from the government should have the same opt-out options as the welfare recipients. Mr. Liptak points out that "the majority in a divided three-judge panel indicated "that people are free to opt out - by giving up their welfare benefits." In other words, welfare recipients (as in one of those game shows) can keep the money and give up their Fourth Amendment rights, or keep the rights and starve --both themselves and their families. Sounds fair to me.

So, corporations should have the same privilege. They can keep their subsidies, their tax breaks, their government contracts as long as they give up their Fourth Amendment rights, or they can retain those rights and give up the benefits. Right!

The purpose of these unannounced searches is laudable---to root out welfare fraud. But welfare fraud is a crime, and merely because it is "welfare" should not make the Bill of Rights inapplicable. When the poverty line was established it was not meant to provide that those who fall below it surrender their constitutional rights.