Dan doesn't want to talk about anything ON TOPIC!
in [Adoption]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRIC WHEELCHAIR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: Serco - Privatization of government functions gone mad - Corporate Feudalism?
From: Greegor on 31 Dec 2009 12:22 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 arent 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 Oregons 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 rulings implication is that they should have > obtained a warrant or the permission of her parents before doing > so. > > Washingtons Childrens 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 mothers live-in boyfriend or a fall from a tree. Its > important to find out, fast, whats going on. > > Probable cause which must be established to get a warrant often > cant 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 students behavior, eye contact, > mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that > Billys 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 Circuits opinion is the notion > that investigators are somehow violating the childs 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. Its 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 doesnt 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 shes 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 9 Jan 2010 07:11 Far too much ON TOPIC for you, isn't it Dan?
From: womanGoddess on 9 Jan 2010 08:08
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? |