Postby EagleESBD » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:12 am
Ok here is a review of The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999)
“involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.”The court did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had “qualified immunity” and said, “the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency.” No one was in distress. “The police officer was there to back up the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will, not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm.” And he should have known better. Furthermore, “had the information beenmore alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent harmto a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to speak. A reasonable
official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.”
In my case, I specifically told the CPS worker that she had to get a warrant if she wanted to gain access to my home. She responded by contacting my Company Commander (military) and had a "No-contact" military restraining order against my wife for 72 hrs forcing me to live for 3 days in the barracks. Meanwhile, the caseworker then coerced my wife into letting her gain access. My wife did on the reasoning that since I stood up for my right and was removed from the home, that if she stood up for those same rights our son would be removed from the home. The CPS worker successfully coerced compliance.
According to the above mentioned case:
Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers, the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much
to a child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. Social workers are not exempt from the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police
officer. And police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker;
this would be intimidation, coercion and threatening. The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. But the
second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable.
If a police officer says, “If you don’t let us in your home we will break down your door” –a parent who then opens the door has
not given free and voluntary consent. If a social worker says, “if you don’t let me in the home I will take your children away” –a
parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent. If a social worker says, “I will get a warrant from the judge
or I will call the police if you do not let me in” negate consent. ANY type of communication, which conveys the idea to the parent that
they have no realistic alternative, but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of
consent. CPS’ policy clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten parents even if the parents assert their 4th Amendment
rights.
I'm looking for anybody else who allowed a CPS worker into your home when you didn't want to because of false promises, lies, or the use of threats to please respond. We must defend our 4th Amendment rights, CPS is not immuned from breaking the law!