No 4th Amendment Violation in Welfare Searches, Court Rules
The Supreme Court recently declined to review a case that questioned the constitutionality of a San Diego welfare inspection program. The case, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six single parents, has sparked controversy around the country. Here's why.
In 1997, San Diego County instituted a program called Project 100% designed to make sure all welfare applicants are eligible for government aid. Meant to prevent welfare fraud, the program includes unscheduled home visits to every applicant to verify the information provided.
According to reports, investigators come unannounced, during regular business hours; their searches can last up to an hour and often include examination of cabinets and closets. The object of these searches is reportedly to determine that no "absent" spouses are present, all assets match up with descriptions and "dependent" children are just that.
But, according to the ACLU challenge, this procedure violates 4th Amendment rights that protect Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. The ACLU allegedly contends that investigators have no probable cause to enter these homes, but could potentially use any items they found as evidence in a criminal investigation.
A federal court in California ruled that the searches did not violate any rights. A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that decision in a 2-1 ruling last year. Sources indicate that the appellate decision was based mainly on two factors.
First, since the searches are meant to determine welfare eligibility, and are not part of a criminal investigation, 4th Amendment rights do not apply. Second, in a 1971 Supreme Court case, a similar ruling determined that officials in New York were allowed to cut off benefits to a woman who wouldn't allow a welfare agent to inspect her home.
Justices also reportedly noted that all home searches were voluntary, and so were permissible under the 4th Amendment. But opponents of the ruling point out that, if a family denies investigators the right to enter its home, the welfare agency can withhold assistance. That can be disastrous for families in need.
Justice Raymond Fisher, who opposed the decision of the Court of Appeals, pointed out that the case cited by his colleagues involved welfare agents inspecting homes, whereas the San Diego case concerned investigators employed by the District Attorney's office.
Apparently, this distinction is important: because unlawful items found by an investigator during a home search could lead to a criminal investigation, Fisher believes the 4th Amendment protections apply.
The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision, but the request was denied. Officials from San Diego County reportedly advised the Supreme Court not to review the case, pointing out in a brief that no legal action has ever been taken as a result of items discovered during a home search.
Additionally, the county pointed out that the information gathered during searches is given to welfare eligibility experts, not to law enforcers. And courts have ruled before that government agents can inspect people's homes to make sure government resources aren't being used illegally.
So what's the final word on all this?
Legal precedent exists to support both sides of the case. While the decision to allow the searches is certainly within the bounds of reason, it could also prove a slippery slope, causing many opponents to wonder what will be allowed next.