4th Amendment decision about interviewing kids at school
Greegor
Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
THE NEWS TRIBUNE Tacoma WA
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am
A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-
abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.
Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions
on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the
balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.
The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services
violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy
sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had
been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have
obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing
so.
Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with
this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County
Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap”
investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not
only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy
who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them
from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s
important to find out, fast, what’s going on.
Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often
can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example,
frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of
abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact,
mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that
Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence
that a crime has been committed.
The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may
be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child.
Great idea.
One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion
that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional
rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission.
That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against
“unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects
and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims
from talking about their abuse.
In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the
home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of
automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not
spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher
can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory
– an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a
house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a
“special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon
abuse case.
There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the
personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does
need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home.
Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and
fast.
Greegor
Far too much ON TOPIC for you, isn't it Dan?
Greegor
womanGoddess
> Far too much ON TOPIC for you, isn't it Dan?
Funny. I don;t see Sullivan responding to this thread.
Having delusions again Greg?