It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Justices Uphold Warrantless Welfare Home Searches

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Justices Uphold Warrantless Welfare Home Searches


www.blacklistednews.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Los Angeles Times


[edit on 5/12/07 by Keyhole]




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
A little more chipping away of our Bill of Rights!

The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It doesn't matter if they aren't searching for something to prove criminal intent or not, "people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Just because somebody is poor, doesn't mean that "The Bill of Rights" doesn't pertain to them! I'm all for getting the people off welfare who don't belong on it, but this is not the way to do it.

Does this mean in the future that whenever a citizen recieves aide or subsidies from the government that they may also end up having the 4th Amendment of the Constitution taken away from them also.

www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/12/07 by Keyhole]


apc

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
If you make the intruders eat lead, can you buy more bullets with food stamps?

I say any of these searches should be treated as a home invasion and the homeowners should respond appropriately.

>
It's all part of the radical Left agenda. Get as many people dependent on the Government as possible, and then strip them of their rights as a condition for receiving assistance. I wonder if Hillarycare will qualify.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The news article doesn't say whether the welfare recipient would be notified in advance of a home "walk through." If they were, that would mitigate the invasion of privacy somewhat, though it still wouldn't justify it.

Recipents of almost any kind of benefits based on poverty--welfare, food stamps, public housing, section 8 housing, SSI, etc.--are thoroughly and routinely investigated to make sure they are truly as distitute and miserable as they're supposed to be. The investigative procedures are often invasive and humiliating. I know a person on food stamps who had to submit copies of her bank statements, and every purchase was scrutinized. Every aspect of a recipient's life must be documented. No aspect is immune to inspection.

The argument in favor of these procedures is that the authorities can help insure the taxpayers' money is spent on the truly needy (whether a person is deserving is usually not an issue). The cost is the loss of privacy, human dignity and the guarantees in the Bill of Rights.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Who knows, you might not see so many welfare queens wearing gold and diamond jewelry driving 50,000 dollar cadillacs with DVD players and gold frakking rims... Gods I hate those types. "I is po give me fwee monais! while I sit on my ass and do nuttin but sell drugs or pimp myself out! to afford my 85inch flat panel tv!"

Of course if you took all the money given away in regular welfare it doesn't equal what Bush gives to Oil companied in a year... That's right, poor people all combined get less tax payer dollars then the billionaires do. How sad is that?

Also, if you don't want your privacy invaded then get off of welfare, might be something to motivate them.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
And if the oil companies were cut off from their subsidies, and the money was given to develop alternative energy solutions, we might not need to control the Middle East.


apc

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
No aspect is immune to inspection? Should they turn around and place their hands against the wall when the inspectors arrive, as well? Maybe let them take one of the daughters into a bedroom and inspect her?

I'm all for motivating deadbeats to get off welfare, but forcefully violating the sanctity of one's home for purposes other than ensuring the safety of children is unacceptable.

The system should be like probation. Recipients should report to an officer regularly and provide proof that they are attempting to get a job or get a second job. If a child is involved, the recipient should be temporarily sterilized.

This broad sweeping mandate that all recipients have their homes searched is completely out of line. Just because there's scum in the system doesn't mean everyone is guilty. Joe Veteran who got both his legs blown off fighting for our rights does not deserve to have those same rights stolen from him.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Once again, don't want to be searched, get off of welfare.

But what would count as found to get them off of welfare? A car with a 6,000 dollar stereo system? 10lbs in gold jewlery? Ecko and sports jerseys and 200$ Nikes in the closet? The 20lbs of weed they have stuffed under the bed? The diamond grill for their teeth? 85inch Plasma flat screen TV?


apc

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I see... you believe only black stereotypes are on welfare?

If the State can produce transaction records or receipts proving the recipients purchased the goods while receiving assistance, so be it. Otherwise, piss off.

Personally I would like to see the end of checks being cut and instead have purchases and payments be made directly from the welfare office. Utility bills paid directly, rent paid directly, gas cards issued just like food stamps, or anything else to minimize the possibility of the recipient abusing the funds. But just because a few don't take being on welfare seriously doesn't mean every single person should have their rights stripped away.

There are people that don't have any choice but to be a dependant, and it is for those that I willfully pay my taxes. They are not sub-human or second class citizens, and they must have their rights respected like the rest of us. That may not mean much these days, but it should.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Only black steroetype? Blacks aren't the only ones with 6,000 dollar stereo systems or expensive clothing(I guess replace ecko with A&E) and replace marijuanna with uh, meth?(Hillbilly heroin) Replace diamond grill in their teeth with cow horns and other expensive junk on their trucks grill. Keep the 85inch flat panel plasma TV, that stays the same.

Too many people on Welfare that shouldn't be. People driving 2007 trucks while I spend 92 dollars to keep my 89 Dodge Dakota alive. People wearing a shirt that costs more then half my bills. People spending foodstamp money on alcohol or junk food. People having kids just to get another check, sometimes having miscarriges and not reporting them to scam more money.

People sitting on their asses and doing nothing while talking on computers costing twice as much as mine all the while getting my tax money.

I support this, and drug testing, and forced BC. Sorry, can't take care of yourself go on the pill, patch, shot, whatever to keep you from making another welfare check, er, kid. And of course drug testing, if we did this we'd wipe out tens of thousands of people on welfare.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
There are cases about this in most Constitutional Law textbooks.

The reason that "inspections" like this are okay, is because the welfare recipient is aware that they are a possibility, and that they are a condition of receiving welfare.

Basically, if a person is on welfare and is opposed to such inspections/searches/whatever you want to call them, all they have to do is stop receiving welfare. That is not my personal opinion, that is just how courts have seen it in the past.


apc

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 


If you'll read my posts without having a coronary you'll notice I agree with some of your points.

A one-time walk-through is not unreasonable for initial enrollment in assistance, as is a subsequent walk-through if there is suspicion of fraud. However presumption of innocence must be maintained, and the rights of all should not be violated because of the crimes of a few. This means no "routine searches."



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
They should be searched, at random, at any time. The second you find them with even a single marijuanna seed, crack pipe, or a pair of shoes that costs more then the rent they pay, kick them off of welfare. Sorry, if you're going to make more money in a week then I do in a month through illegal means, you don't deserve to be on welfare.

Of course this does not affect those who actually need welfare. The ones who are on it because they're job was sent overseas and they are inbetween jobs because they won't making more money in a week then some people do in a year through illegal means.


apc

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
If there is evidence of fraud, it is not unreasonable to demand entrance under threat of denial of services. But do you honestly believe the Bill of Rights does not apply to anyone who is in a situation where they have no choice but to be dependent on government assistance?

The mother of two who made a stupid mistake as a teenager and now has to decide between feeding her kids or paying the gas bill?

The veteran who was dismembered by an roadside bomb and now has brain damage?

And even as you describe, the normal unemployed or underemployed person who is in an economically depressed area and has exhausted their own financial resources and must receive assistance or start packing their belongings into a grocery cart?

Requiring random searches most certainly affects these people. You're saying these people have no rights? No privacy? They might as well take the curtains off their windows because everyone in the world should be able to see what goes on in their home?

Will you demand their daughter pay you a visit on the night of her wedding as well, my Lord?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Reply to HHH is King

Do you remember any of the reasons WHY the USA fought a war with England back in the 1700's?

People NEED to feel secure in their selves and their homes, and even if they may be on welfare, "Your home is YOUR castle!"

Unless they are doing something illegal, there is NO reason for the government to have to invade their privacy.

Do you REALLY remember what the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights says?
SOURCE


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Do you remember why our forefathers wrote this into the Constitution?

It was because back then, they thought it was WRONG that the government was allowed to come into your home and search it ANYTIME they wanted to!

Imagine THAT! They didn't want somebody from the government to be able to walk into their house anytime they wanted to without a search warrant! And they felt this way back in the 1700's! "

"HUH!"

But NOW, over 300 years later, people are starting to believe the government SHOULD be allowed to enter a citizens home anytime they want to? This is ONE of the reasons our forefathers and ancestors fought a war and NOW people want to give this right up?!?

Sorry, but, no WAY!

The government is NOT allowed to search the homes of its citizens anytime it wants to, its written in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, it was something that was held so high on their list back in the 1700's, that when they wrote The Constitution, it was #4 on their list!

Unless a law has been broken, there should be NO reason that the government needs to be searching your home!

[edit on 9/12/07 by Keyhole]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
Reply to HHH is King

Do you remember any of the reasons WHY the USA fought a war with England back in the 1700's?

People NEED to feel secure in their selves and their homes, and even if they may be on welfare, "Your home is YOUR castle!"

Unless they are doing something illegal, there is NO reason for the government to have to invade their privacy.

Do you REALLY remember what the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights says?
SOURCE


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Do you remember why our forefathers wrote this into the Constitution?

It was because back then, they thought it was WRONG that the government was allowed to come into your home and search it ANYTIME they wanted to!

Imagine THAT! They didn't want somebody from the government to be able to walk into their house anytime they wanted to without a search warrant! And they felt this way back in the 1700's! "

"HUH!"

But NOW, over 300 years later, people are starting to believe the government SHOULD be allowed to enter a citizens home anytime they want to? This is ONE of the reasons our forefathers and ancestors fought a war and NOW people want to give this right up?!?

Sorry, but, no WAY!

The government is NOT allowed to search the homes of its citizens anytime it wants to, its written in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, it was something that was held so high on their list back in the 1700's, that when they wrote The Constitution, it was #4 on their list!

Unless a law has been broken, there should be NO reason that the government needs to be searching your home!

[edit on 9/12/07 by Keyhole]


But it is NOT THEIR HOME! Are they paying for it? No, the Government is. Therefor it is the governments home. Until they get off of welfare and pay with money they earned, it is not their home.

Also, how does a search to make sure you aren't committing fraud affect you? I mean, do you lose money, what? If you're on welfare the government owns you as you are getting your money from them.

How much money would we save if we did 2 things?

1. Drug tested. Any drug, from hair sample, off.

2. three random searches a month.

You're saying drug tests cost money and so do searches! But after doing this for say, 2 months you'll have so few people left you'll be able to cut back to say, one random search a year and same for drug test.


apc

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
So you think it's a landlord-tenant issue?

Sorry, but in this country even property occupants are protected by the 4th Amendment.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
No response to the millions we'd save if every state did inspections? No response to the millions we'd save that could go to say, schools, grants, scholarships, the troops, healthcare, so forth if we did the drug testing and inspections for about 3 months to get rid of all the frauds?

And still haven't answered the main question, what do you lose when searched? Besides my money when they find your bling bling and hillbilly heroin?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
You lose the the privacy and security of your home that was given to everybody in the US in the Bill of Rights!

The government is not allowed to search homes unless there is "Probable Cause", if there is no probable cause, then a search is not allowed, it was a right given to us that the government CANNOT conduct unreasonable searches unless they think a law WAS broken, we are protected from this by the 4th Amendment. No where does it say that this law does not apply if you are on Fedreral or State aide!

And to the millions that MIGHT be saved by government being allowed to conduct illegal searches, NO, I don't think the millions that might, or maybe even would be saved are worth letting the government ignore the 4th Amendment just because you are receiving aide from your own government, once you start letting them do this, worse things will only happen.

We may not have the best Constitution ever written for citizens and THEIR government to follow, but follow it we must, and to open the gate and start letting the government perpetrate "minor" infractions, will only lead to more and larger "infractions" against the US Constitution.

And to your question, "What do you lose when searched?", when you allow the government to search your home anytime they want to? You just lost your 4th Amendment Rights. And, to repeat myself one more time, a right that our countries founding fathers thought was so important that they made it the 4th amendment in the US Constitution and which is also one of the amendments included in the Bill of Rights.

Might not mean much to you, losing rights that you were given in the 4th Amendment, but it does mean a lot to other people!

[edit on 11/12/07 by Keyhole]


apc

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I can't believe I missed this.



Originally posted by HHH Is King
If you're on welfare the government owns you ...


I think that pretty much settles it. Don't you?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join