Need for a search warrant trips social workers

Alliance Defense Fund via TownHall.com ^ | 2/5/03 | Richard K. Jefferson

[nightdriver]

“Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them,...

Aye-men Bro!

It's about time these gubmint agencies got their chain jerked!

[Ken H]

Kudos to this judge. Nice to know the good guys occasionaly win.

Several months ago, there was a thread about either this case or a similar one. I was thinking it was in North Carolina.

Anyone have a link to that thread?

I'm curious to see if anyone took the side of the social agency.

[tahiti]

"The police and social workers responsible for this travesty should be fired, jailed, and then subjected to personal liability for their actions. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize tyranny."

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) — State or local officials who stand by or protect an unlawful eviction or seizure are liable for damages under 42 USC 1983.

Let the fun begin.

[quietolong]

FRONTLINE failure to protect; The Caseworker Files; Maine's child-protection caseworkers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837782/posts

[jimkress]

Thanks! Good info!

[pariah]

it's a crying shame that it would even have to come to that. It’s just a reminder that we have to be vigilant and assertive about protecting our rights.

Yes, a cryin' shame. Illegal search and seizure under the 'we're here to help you' rationale; threats by the state to take their children! (Shades of Stalinist Russia!)
Thank heaven for the Alliance Defense Fund and similar organizations. The ACLU is conspicuous by its total absence from these cases.

[Vic3O3]

HS/4th amend ping!

[Vic3O3]

Personally, I think the thing the Walshes should have done was call 911 when the SW tried to illegally enter the home, and assert to the cops that there was someone impersonating a state official and trying to kidnap their kids! That would've gotten the cops over there in a big hurry! And on the Walsh's side.

[tahiti]

"Illegal search and seizure under the 'we're here to help you' rationale..."

I would like to check your "resolve" behind this statement.

Formulating my conslusions from the perspective of a "presumption of liberty" as well as the fact that we allow ourselves to be governed by a "constitutional republic" form of government versus be governed by a "democracy," government mandated federalized security personnel used to search my person and belongings before I board a privately owned aircraft violates the 4th amendment (no warrant before the search), violates the 5th amendment right of the airline's owners (nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation), and violates the 9th amendment of my right to travel. (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

In addition, a government law not allowing the citizens to be armed while on public property, municipal airports, violates the 2nd amendment, as well.

Of course, all of this government unconstitutional activity is being done under the guise of "we're here to help you" rationale.

And yes the ACLU is conspicuous by it's absence in these cases because I asked them to help me file federal lawsuits against the Patriot Act and they would not touch it.

Think it over.

[dd5339]

Nope! The ACLU would not be on their side for this one. You missed a couple of key points.
#1 The family was home schooling.
#2 The family attends church.

Both of those are about as big of strikes against you as gun ownership is to the ACLU.

My personal theory is that if they don't have the county sheriff and a valid search warrant with them then they have about 10 seconds to get off my property. And if they force their way into my house they will be dealt with like any other EXTREME threat to the health and safety of my family.

Semper Fi