so many call us asking weekly as being confirmed in MANY case studies around

the world in each district and current past law:

is the N.J. DIVISON YOUTH FAMILY SERVICE(s)workers DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN FAMILIES DHS & CPS WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES
SUBJECT TO THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT?

         Yes they are. is all we say which is TRUTH.....

 the 4th Amendment is applicable to DCF investigators in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government officials.” 

 This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588.

          The social workers argued, “the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the activities of their social worker employees.” 

The social workers claimed,

“entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searches nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment,

 and thus can be conducted without either a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminent harm.”

The court disagreed and ruled:

 “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view of their powers,

the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned,

 are met by a closed door.” 

The Court also stated:

 “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS-DYFS-CPS  employee,

or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency.”

(Emphasis added) 

 The social worker’s first argument, shot down by the court.  The social workers then argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and that the situation was an “emergency.”  They state, the “Defendants argue their entry into the home, even absent voluntary consent, was reasonable under the circumstances.  They point to: the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch; and the plaintiff’s attempt to leave.

 These circumstances the defendants argue, created  a ‘emergency situation"within the home that led Darnold and Brown reasonably "to believe" the Walsh children were in danger of imminent harm.

  (Thus is the old “emergency” excuse that has been used for years by social workers.) 

 The Court again disagreed and ruled in part:

 “There's nothinginherently

unusual or dangerous about cluttered premises, much less anything about such vaguely described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or harm to young children.

  If household ‘clutter’  and maybe is not as "clean"as maybe some other home(s)due to the clutter inside of the home justifies warrant less entry and threats of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents then "few families are secure" and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by state officials and officers.” 

The Court went on to rule,

“They have failed to show that any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the welfare of the plaintiff’s children. 

In this case a rational jury could find that ‘not evidence points to the opposite conclusion’

 and a lack of ‘sufficient exigent circumstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtaining a warrant.” 

The social worker’s second argument, shot down by the court!

so keep fighting everyone as the ONLY WAY YOU LOSE Is if you DONT.