Handcuffs not Coercive

February 5, 2012 permalink

Arizona social workers forced their way into the home of John and Tiffany Loudermilk by threatening to arrest them and seize their homeschooled children. An American appellate court ruled that threatening to handcuff parents and seize the children was not coercion. The family has asked the US supreme court to reverse that decision. If the court takes the case, it will determine whether parents have any protection against arbitrary search by social workers acting under pretense of child protection.

expand

collapse

Handcuffs not considered 'threat' by court

Case asks Supremes to weigh in on governmental coercion

Published: February 4, 2012, by Bob Unruh

Attorneys representing Arizona parents who “voluntarily” allowed their home to be searched by authorities after social workers used an anonymous tip to threaten to handcuff them and seize their five children, and then summoned deputies to do that, have asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the controversy.

The Home School Legal Defense Association has filed a petition asking the justices to review the case of John and Tiffany Loudermilk.

The couple sued after the confrontation at their Maricopa County home in 2005, and a district court judge ruled a reasonable person would believe their decision to allow social workers to search their home was coerced.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed court in the U.S., later said the search was proper.

“For 40 terrifying minutes, this homeschooling couple had asserted their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their home. The two investigative social workers were eventually joined by six uniformed sheriff’s deputies who were called because the social workers considered the Loudermilks to be ‘uncooperative,’” the HSLDA said in its description of the case.

But when the social workers “played their ace-in-the-hole,” warning, “If you don’t let us in immediately, we will take your children into state custody,” the HSLDA said, the Loudermilks were forced to allow the search.

The court filing explains that the still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home, but social services took some two months to respond.

When social services responded, it essentially explained that it was an emergency because they decided it was an emergency.

“In the two months between receiving the anonymous report and arriving unannounced on the Loudermilks’ front porch, social services clearly never believed that the situation needed emergency intervention,” HSLDA asserted. “No one ever asked a judge for a court order. But when it came time for the social workers to complete their investigation, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights just got in the way.”

HSLDA pointed out that in 2010, state investigations intruded into the private lives of more than 3 million children across the U.S. But the organization contended that the incursions were unnecessary three out of four times.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has never taken a case involving the Fourth Amendment rights of families who are in the middle of a social services investigation at their home,” said Michael Farris, lead counsel in the case. “We think it is high time it does.”

According to the petition, the Loudermilks had been building their dream home in Arizona. They eventually obtained permission from the county to move in, even though there were minor projects to be finished.

One social worker in 2005 left a business card and later explained when the parents contact the office that there was an anonymous tip. A visit was scheduled for the social worker to investigate what allegedly was a “danger” to the children two months later.

However, the family consulted a lawyer who warned the county that the proper permission had been given – by the county – for the family to move in.

When social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer appeared at the home unannounced some weeks later, they threatened to take the family’s five children.

“She (Cash) appeared to believe that her simple inability to determine the children’s living conditions was sufficient grounds for her to remove the children from their parents,” the petition explains. That’s even though the social workers were allowed to talk to the children to see that they were fine.

Nevertheless, the threats from Cash continued.

“Faced with unrelenting ultimatum that the officers would physically remove the children from the home unless they were admitted, together with a significant show of force, John felt that he had no option besides allowing the search of his home. He believed that he would be arrested and the children removed if he continued to refuse… Tiffany believed her children would be immediately removed from the home if she did not allow the social workers and officers to search her home.”

The ultimate search took only minutes and uncovered no issues, showing that the “tip” was wrong.

The HSLDA said other courts have required evidence of harm or a threat, or evidence that the children are at risk, in order to make such demands.

“In this case, the lead law enforcement officer concluded that there was no basis for suggesting that exigent circumstances existed which would support a warrantless entry,” the brief explains.

The result, the organization said, is that in the 9th Circuit now, “social workers can enter any family home whenever there is an anonymous tip containing a remote suggestion of a threat to a child’s safety.”

Earlier, it was U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll who decided that the lawsuit by the family against the social workers, sheriff and deputies would be allowed to continue, because the social workers’ concerns were based on “an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs’ home was uninhabitable.”

However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip “without more, does not constitute probable cause.”

Named as defendants are Deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.

Source: World Net Daily

Addendum: Final word from the supreme court: social workers threatening to take your children immediately is not coercion.

expand

collapse

WND EXCLUSIVE

War on U.S. homeschoolers escalates

State can snatch kids thanks to Supreme Court

Published: March 26, 2012, Bob Unruh

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, caught up in the high-profile Obamacare arguments that started today, have refused to intervene in a case in which deputies threatened parents with the forced removal of their children unless they agreed to let social workers, who did not have a warrant or probable case, search their home.

The stunning conclusion came in a lawsuit brought on behalf of John and Tiffany Loudermilk, who sued officials after a confrontation at their Maricopa County, Ariz., home in 2005.

A district court judge ruled a reasonable person would believe the Loudermilks’ decision to allow social workers to search their home was coerced, in violation of the 4th Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the search was proper.

The case may not be finished, as the opinion from the 9th Circuit was unpublished, which means that it is not binding on future cases. Also, when the deputies appealed to the 9th Circuit for immunity, the social workers who also were sued did not, and that part of the case remains on hold at the district court level.

James Mason, chief counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which brought the case on behalf of the family, told WND that the group will consult with the family and soon make a determination on the next step.

But he said the result is disappointing, because no matter the status of the appeal, the situation did develop, and the threats were made to give the social workers what they wanted.

The HSLDA described the situation: “For 40 terrifying minutes, this homeschooling couple had asserted their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their home. The two investigative social workers were eventually joined by six uniformed sheriff’s deputies who were called because the social workers considered the Loudermilks to be ‘uncooperative.’”

Then social workers played their “ace-in-the-hole” and threatened the parents that their five children would be placed in state custody immediately if they did not allow the search.

The case developed after a still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home. Two months later, social services arrived unannounced at the home and explained that it was an emergency because social workers decided it was an emergency at that point.

“In the two months between receiving the anonymous report and arriving unannounced on the Loudermilks’ front porch, social services clearly never believed that the situation needed emergency intervention,” HSLDA asserted. “No one ever asked a judge for a court order. But when it came time for the social workers to complete their investigation, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights just got in the way.”

It was social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer who appeared at the home unannounced and threatened to take the family’s five children.

“She (Cash) appeared to believe that her simple inability to determine the children’s living conditions was sufficient grounds for her to remove the children from their parents,” the petition to the high court explained. That’s even though the social workers were allowed to talk to the children to see that they were fine.

The social workers called on the deputies to reinforce the threats with the force of law.

“Faced with unrelenting ultimatum that the officers would physically remove the children from the home unless they were admitted, together with a significant show of force, John felt that he had no option besides allowing the search of his home. He believed that he would be arrested and the children removed if he continued to refuse… Tiffany believed her children would be immediately removed from the home if she did not allow the social workers and officers to search her home,” the appeal stated.

The ultimate search took only minutes and uncovered no issues, showing that the “tip” was wrong.

“In this case, the lead law enforcement officer concluded that there was no basis for suggesting that exigent circumstances existed which would support a warrantless entry,” the brief explained.

Mason suggested that the outcome of the confrontation could provide a ripple effect for families confronted by authorities investigating anonymous tips in a variety of scenarios.

Source: World Net Daily