From: Greegor on
On Dec 30, 5:10 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html
>
> 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.

Far too much ON TOPIC for you, isn't it Dan?
From: Greegor on
Far too much ON TOPIC for you, isn't it Dan?

From: womanGoddess on
On Jan 9, 6:11 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?