The 9th Circuit Rules for Families Two recent rulings favor family rights over government intrusion

CPS WATCH

The 9th Circuit Rules for Families

Two recent rulings favor family rights over government intrusion

Two recent federal court rulings establish clearly the rights of families to be free of unwarranted government intrusion into their daily lives. The rulings further established that government officials may be held personally libel in a court of law for overstepping their authority and trampling the sanctity of the family.

In the first case, Calabretta vs. Floyd, a social worker and police officer coerced entry into the Calabretta home by threatening to beat the door down if the mother refused to let them in. Once in the home, the social worker questioned the family's 12 year old daughter outside the presence of her mother and strip searched her 3 year old sister.

The court upheld that in the absence of "exigent circumstances", a government official may not enter a home with out a search warrant, specifically stating, "Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples' homes at will." And that families have a "well-established right to privacy from inspections by social workers."

An important part of this case is the fact that the social; worker and the police officer were held personally liable for their actions. They couldn't hide behind their position.

CPS watch urges families to keep a copy of this case near the door. If a social worker or a police officer tries to enter your home without a search warrant,give them a copy of this case, pointing out that they may be held personally liable forcoercing or forcing entry into your home. They will consider their actions more carefully when made aware of the fact that their agency won't be able to bail them out if they violate your rights. It is one thing to think the agency may be sued or may even fire you, it is quite another thing to think you personally may lose your home or be ordered to pay a substantial amount of damages.
To read and/or print the full decision


In the second case Wallis vs City of Escondido, a relative in a mental facility phoned police claiming the family planned to sacrifice their son to Satan on an upcoming cult holiday. Without conducting further investigation, police removed the families two children without a court order and placed them in a county run facility.

Several days later, without obtaining judicial authorization and without notifying their parents, police took the children to a hospital for the performance of highly intrusive anal and virginal physical examinations.

The court upheld that the police didn't have reasonable cause to remove the children without an investigation or a court order. Further more, in the absence of court order, parental permission is required to take children for a physical exam.
To read and/or print the full decision


NOTE: Calbretta Vs Floyd case citation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals docket number 97133585. Wallis Vs City of Escondido case citation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, docket number 9755579.

http://www.bountylicenserecovery.com/cpswatch.html