Re: Does corporate wellfare count ?
- From: sailor <x989@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:57:33 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 12:13 am, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Apparently NOT in these proceedings. \w/
Justices Uphold Welfare Home Searches
By David G. Savage
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 27 November 2007
The ACLU had challenged a San Diego County policy, saying its
warrantless inspections violated privacy rights. The Supreme Court
refuses to hear it.
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.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the police to search
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.
"No applicant has been prosecuted for welfare fraud based upon
anything observed or discovered during a home visit," County Counsel
John J. Sansone told the high court.
In its suit, the ACLU contended that the mandatory home searches,
based on no evidence of wrongdoing, violated the 4th Amendment and its
ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
But a federal judge ruled for San Diego County, and a three-judge
panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in
a 2-1 decision last year. Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew
Kleinfeld formed the majority, while Judge Raymond Fisher dissented.
Afterward, eight judges filed a dissent and argued unsuccessfully that
the full 9th Circuit should reconsider the panel's ruling.
"This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor," said Judge
Harry Pregerson, writing for the dissenters. "This is especially
atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar
intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive government
entitlements. The government does not search through the closets and
medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsidies."
Pregerson noted that San Diego is alone among California's 58
counties in mandating home searches for welfare recipients, but "this
ruling will surely set a new standard," he added.
The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to take up the case of Sanchez
vs. County of San Diego, but it was dismissed in a one-line order
If you want to suck on Uncle Sammy's tits, should you be surprised
that he'd want to look in your pants?
- Does corporate wellfare count ?
- From: whistler
- Does corporate wellfare count ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Refrigerator Mothers
- Next by Date: Re: Refrigerator Mothers
- Previous by thread: Does corporate wellfare count ?
- Next by thread: International Day of the Disabled - December 3rd