Social workers, cops and search warrants

[Preacherman]

I received the following via the API list. No URL or other source was provided - can any Ohio THR members provide one to a related news link, please?

Need for a search warrant trips social workers

Ohio authorities not aware of Fourth Amendment protections

Erie County, OH - A home schooling family has settled its case against Erie County social workers and Vermilion police for the coerced entry into the family's home on Feb. 21, 2001.

"Courts have settled this key issue in other jurisdictions, and now it's settled in this jurisdiction. Social workers cannot enter a home, willy-nilly, without a warrant," said Gary McCaleb, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, the national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, that supported the case.

Paul and Linda Walsh filed a lawsuit after police and caseworkers entered their home without a warrant and without permission. The social workers said they were acting on an anonymous tip about unspecified "hazards" in the home, and claimed they had a right to enter the home without a warrant.

The social workers threatened the family, saying that if they were not allowed in the home they would take the children away from the parents. In papers filed with the court, the Walshes said that a social worker even blocked their driveway with her car when the family tried to leave to attend a church function that evening.

The social worker summoned police, who frisked Mr. Walsh and threatened to arrest him on charges of obstructing official business if he did not allow the caseworkers into the home. Walsh said that he then allowed the workers to enter the home rather than risk being jailed.

The caseworkers found nothing in the home that constituted an immediate hazard to the family.

Instead of tolerating this official abuse, the Walshes chose to sue the caseworkers, the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, the Erie County Board of Commissioners, the City of Vermilion, Ohio; and three Vermilion police officers.

Defendants told the court that the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures do not apply to them in such circumstances. They asked the court to throw the case out, but the court refused. The court said the facts supported the Walshes' claims against the defendants for unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as for false imprisonment, assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress.

In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: "Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. There is ... no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. ... Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."

The court stated that because the Walshes refused consent, and because the anonymous complaint did not supply persuasive evidence of an emergency, the caseworkers had no option but to either "leave the [Walshes] alone and in peace" or seek a search warrant.

The court further ruled that the police did not have probable cause to detain, frisk, and threaten to arrest Walsh, since he was not breaking any law but merely asserting his "fundamental right to be left alone."

Kurt D. Anderson, a partner with the Elyria firm of Fauver, Keyse, Walker & Donovan, represents the Walshes. Anderson, a graduate of Alliance Defense Fund's second National Litigation Academy, said the training gave him the background to help the Walshes when the opportunity arose.

"ADF's training and resources really helped us confront an issue that, unfortunately, had apparently never been addressed in Ohio before," Anderson said. "As far as we could tell, nobody in Ohio had ever challenged a caseworker's home inspection for failure to get a warrant. As a home schooling parent myself, I really took the Walshes' situation to heart. I admire them for their courage to stand up for their rights, but 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. They can be trampled on even by well-meaning but uninformed government agents."

Anderson expects that as a result of the Walsh case, training policies will be revised for social workers not just in Erie County, but across the state of Ohio. "The caseworkers in the Walsh case admitted they had never been taught anything about the Fourth Amendment or search warrants. The feedback I'm getting is that agencies across the state have gotten a wake-up call on this issue."

Anderson declined to reveal the specific amount of the settlement, which was not stated in the court record.

For more information about home schooling and the law, please contact the Home School Legal Defense Association, an ally of the Alliance Defense Fund. HSLDA attorney Scott Somerville can be reached at (540) 338-5600.

The Alliance Defense Fund is a servant organization serving people of faith. The Alliance Defense Fund provides strategy, training, and funding in the legal battle for religious liberty, sanctity of life, and traditional family values.

 

[Aggie1]

Sometimes Liberty rips through the chains of Oppression like sunshine through the storm clouds on warm spring day.

 

[DeltaElite]

Good decision.
Social workers are a pain in the patooty, then again so are cops.

 

[Baba Louie]

Good thing there were no firearms in that house. Or maybe there were. Makes me wonder if there's a judge somewhere who would sign a warrant for "Unspecified Hazards" based on an anonymous tip.

Coerced, threatened and finally knuckling under 2 years ago and they finally have their day in court.

A good Civics lesson for the kids.

Lets hope all of the agencies involved also learn some Civics.

That homeschooling sounds dangerous.

Anonymous tips sound dangerous.

2 years worth of pain and suffering...

Adios

 

[Coronach]

This is very odd. I am a cop in Ohio, and, while I cannot speak for statewide court decisions, I can tell you flat-out that such an action would be against both my department's policy and any training I have received. We are instructed that there are only 3 ways for a Social Worker and associated police escort to gain entrance to a residence:

1. Court Order
2. Consent
3. If the officer observes, from the threshold, a situation that presents an immediate risk of physical harm to a resident inside. (read: you are not ever going to reach this standard, so content yourself with #1 and #2)

A keen observer will note that #3 is also a SCOTUS-approved exception (exigent circumstance) to the 4th's warrant requirement, so this is not socialwork-dependent.

So, I dunno what sorta show they're running up there, but it would be against policy and training here. And the reason cited is, drumroll, the 4th Amendment.

I'd very much like to see that source. That would be an aberration, at best, AFAIK.

Mike

 

[Blackhawk]

Good for the Walshes!

 

[UnknownSailor]

After reading some of the things that social workers have pulled, on sierratimes.com, I hope any social worker likes talking to my door, because they aren't getting in without armed backup.

 

[foghornl]

I generally have less than zero use for the "Children's Protective Services" or whatever they are called in your area. In most places, all it takes is an anonymous phone call from some disgruntled person, and then YOU have to fend off the Socialists. Burden of proof is on YOU to show that you are not endangering/molesting your children. And, the CPS or whatever their name is, will not ever say who reported you.

Most of them that I encountered when my kids were small were either single or married with no children, and had been the 'only child' growing up. Had no idea of what it takes to bring up 3 kids on 1 income. {Children's mother was famous for P.O.'ing neighbors, school teachers, etc.}

 

[Ebbtide]

It is allways a catch 22.

When a report comes in it is prioritized by the "hotline worker", then the case is assigned to a social worker who investigates the allegation (most often within hours or days). Ohio revised code states (I'm paraphrasing) that all calls and reports must be investigated to establish the risk to the child.

Under the law, parents are obligated to co-operate with the investigation or face the removal of their children (ordered by the courts). Perhaps unfair and porderline illegal, but when dead kids start popping up you will hear the masses asking "where was social service" (you know they have to blame someone beside the parents).

I have never heard of the police getting envolved until a decision is made to remove the children. It sounds to me that the social worker, or more likely, the agency, over reacted to the allegation.

It also looks as if the Walsh's were making a point seeing as they could have just answered the questions and been done with it. So, "two years of pain and suffering" was brought on by themselves.

Not sure why the Erie Police would have forced their way in w/o a warrant or observing any abuse/neglect.

As much as child services is loathed, it is a needed and essential service used to save lives, get people back on their feet, and keep families together.

 

[TallPine]

It also looks as if the Walsh's were making a point seeing as they could have just answered the questions and been done with it. So, "two years of pain and suffering" was brought on by themselves.

Yeah, right - and you could save yourself a lot of "pain and suffering" if you would just quit griping about the Second Amendment and just turn in your guns voluntarily ...

 

[Coronach]

Under the law, parents are obligated to co-operate with the investigation or face the removal of their children (ordered by the courts).

I don't think this is the case, at all. Children's Services cannot remove children without a court order, and I can't imagine a judge granting an order without some solid evidence of absue or neglect. Now, sure...if Chidlren's Services has that evidence on hand, they could presumably use that as a bargaining chip to obtain compliance/cooperation. But AFAIK no one is under any obligation whatsoever to cooperate.

I have never heard of the police getting envolved until a decision is made to remove the children. It sounds to me that the social worker, or more likely, the agency, over reacted to the allegation.

We often are called along to stand by to prevent violence against the Children's Services workers. As such, we do not do anything but observe and make sure that nothing bad happens. Usually we don't say anything to anyone unless we are asked, short of a brief introduction. Our SOP is very plain that Children's Services is the one making the contact and conducting the investigation, not us.

As often as not the Children's Services workers are allowed entrance. When they are not, we leave. Occasionally the resident has stated that they will allow the Children's Services worker inside, but not us. Once, the resident would allow us inside but not Children's Services. In the instances where we are denied entry but Children's Services is allowed inside, we offer to stand by outside...but the Children's Services worker always declines to go it alone (gee, wonder why?). When we were allowed in and they weren't, we declined...it was not our investigation.

Once I had a Children's Services worker who thought she could just do whatever she wanted, even after the homeowner plainly told her to get off of her property and not to come back. A curbside conference and run-down of the elements of criminal trespass ended our association with her.

It also looks as if the Walsh's were making a point seeing as they could have just answered the questions and been done with it. So, "two years of pain and suffering" was brought on by themselves.

I dunno. I can certainly see the point of just answering the stupid allegations and getting it over with...but if some self-important busybody landed up on my porch one evening, I'd probably tell her to pound sand, too.

Not sure why the Erie Police would have forced their way in w/o a warrant or observing any abuse/neglect.

This baffles me, too. I mean...it is VERY plain 'round here that we don't do SQUAT without a court order in hand, or consent.

Mike

 

[BamBam]

Ever notice that when the government screws-up and has to pay out, the amount of the settlement is sealed?

This family deserved every penny they got but If the public KNEW how much it cost the taxpayers, there'd be more of an uproar about the CPS abuse.

 

[eoR]

Preacherman,

It looks like it's a press release from the Alliance Defense Fund.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/OH_home_school.html

Devin

 

[John Galt]

Mike,

>>This baffles me, too.<<

Of course it does, you are a reasonable and intelligent person. That's why you hang around here. If you were a self important pompous ***, you'd get mad at all us and leave.

It's a shame that a few cops with a bad attitude taint the rest.

 

[Dennis]

Coronach notes, "This is very odd. I am a cop in Ohio, ..."

Well, we have cops here in Texas, and LEOs too.
And deputies, constables, and a host of folks with badges and powers to arrest folks.

But I believe here in Texas you'd be called a "peace officer."

And, yes, we believe there's a difference.
A *BIG* difference.

 

[Coronach]

Actually, Dennis, the official term in Ohio is also 'Peace Officer.' We use 'LEO' on TFL/THR, but if I were to use that with any of my coworkers, they'd look at me funny. If I were to correct myself and say "I mean, he's a PO," they'd suddenly nod in understanding.

John Gault-

Actually, I rather imagine that it is not the individual cops that have the attitude problem. It is overwhelmingly likely that there is some departmental policy in play advising them on how to proceed. Cops work with Children's Services often enough that they would almost certainly have an SOP, and since there is no mention of them breaking it, I must *assume* that they're following it (believe me...departments will hang you out to dry if you pull a potentially high-publicity, large-settlement stunt like this in violation of policy). Now, this doesn't make it any more right (in fact it makes it even more wrong), but it does at least put the blame where the blame should be- with the department and its legal advisors, who told the cops that this was the proper way to handle this conflict. Also, naturally, with Children's Services for thinking they're immune to the 4th Amendment.

Also, this assumes that everything is as the (unverified) article says it is. You know how I feel about performance evaluation via news report. Little details can change a lot of things.

Mike

 

[Captain Bligh]

Social workers are a pain in the patooty, then again so are cops.

Delta Elite, generalizations are seldom a good idea. Social workers and cops are just like truck drivers, doctors, gunsmiths, mechanics, or any other profession you can name. There are a few excellent ones, some very good ones, many average ones, some less than average ones and a few very poor ones.

Both perform valuable services for our society. If you spent any time around abused and/or seriously disturbed kids, you'd have a great appreciation for the people that put it on the line to help them.

It is fair to critique this situation. It is not fair to paint everyone with the same brush.

RJ

 

[El Tejon]

Something has been reported incorrectly, Preach. Why would the cops in Erie do this without a judge's signature? Was the city attorney out to lunch--all day?

IME coppers like to stand around and look at the trees, the birds, the sky, their watches, whistle a tune, etc., when they get calls like this. The ex-wife calling CPS on the ex-husband or while the divorce is pending, neighbors using CPS to attack their neighbors, etc. Messing with someone's kids--very dangerous on a number of levels.

Given the drumbeat of the danger of civil liability in cases such as this and the percentage of coppers that are divorced or have seen this all before, why would the Erie po-po leave their cars? Something is wrong here.

 

[TallPine]

Captain Bligh:

If you had been around here a while and/or paying attention, you would have known that DeltaElite IS a cop

I guess he should know ....

 

[Jack T.]

This topic give me a chance to ask a question I have been wanting to ask for a while now.

We all hear about "tame" judges who LE can go to to get a warrent. Is it possible to challenge that warrent in court? By that, I mean is it possible to get the case in front of a "not so tame" judge and get the evidence thrown out because of a soft warrent?

 

[El Tejon]

Jack, yes. It is usually done via a motion to suppress or motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of probable cause as to the search warrant or state rules of criminal procedure may label it something else.

Depending on the size of the locality, often the judge signing the warrant (the judge or magistrate that was "on duty" to take calls, often assigned by the chief judge, senior judge, or circuit court judge) is not the judge sitting for the criminal case. Depending on grounds stated in state law, procedures for change of judge are available.

 

[Jack T.]

Very good. I had just never heard of it, so I was under the impression once a warrent was in hand, you were just out of luck.

 

[El Tejon]

Jack T., in tilecrawler speak, "it depends." Out of luck? Maybe, but you never stop fighting.

Inability to confront the evidence illegally obtained against you? Denial of due process? Out of control po-po? Your honor, this is an outrage.

Or by "out of luck" do you mean the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and valid? Whoa, whoa, it's his first time. He's got a family. The judge won't go over the presumptive on this evidence. Surely, Mr. Prosecutor, why spends days in trial take a chance on 12 and going through appeal if we can be reasonable? Let me show you this proposal.

It depends.

 

[Dannyboy]

Anonymous Tips

I love this phrase. It's like somebody came up with a (barely) legal way to circumvent the 6th Amendment. To protect the public, of course.

 

[DeltaElite]

Captain Bligh,
Relax, I have been in public service for 20 years, first as an EMT, then Paramedic and the last 11+ as a cop.

I have seen Child Protective Services perform poorly repeatedly over my career and I have little use for them.
I have also seen the same from the cops I am forced to work with.

For me it is not a generalization, it is an observation forged over a two decades of dealing with social workers and cops.

BTW, I am in a state that is consistently rated at the bottom for social services in the US. We even came in behind Puerto Rico a few years ago. Ranked 51st, out of 50 states.
Hopefully, you have better services where you are.

Delta, professional cynic.