|
| |
An example of cognitive dissonance
LAW
OF THE LAND
Judges
rule against
home-schoolers
Case
of 2-year-old 'streaker' goes
next
to state Supreme Court
By
Julie Foster
?
2001 WorldNetDaily.com
The
North Carolina Court of Appeals
ruled
in a split decision that the parents
of a
2-year-old "streaker" should have
complied
with a social worker's
demands
to enter the home and privately
interview
all their children.
The
ruling was announced yesterday by
the
Home School Legal Defense
Association,
which represents the
parents.
The appeals court issued its 2-1
decision
Tuesday afternoon, saying the
social
worker's demands did not
constitute
a "search" in the context of
the
Fourth Amendment, which says in its
entirety:
"The
right of the people to be secure in
their
persons, houses, papers, and
effects,
against unreasonable searches
and
seizures, shall not be violated, and
no
Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable
cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation,
and particularly describing
the
place to be searched, and the persons
or
things to be seized."
Home-schooling
parents Jim and Mary
Ann
Stumbo of rural Kings Mountain,
N.C.,
contend that social workers are
bound
to obey the U.S. Constitution and
that
a child-abuse investigation is a
"search."
According
to the majority opinion,
however,
the "case involves neither a
search
nor a seizure and, therefore, does
not
implicate respondents' Fourth
Amendment
rights."
The
case began on Sept. 9, 1999, when a
2-year-old
girl ran out of her family's
home
without any clothes on chasing a
kitten
at around 7 a.m. The toddler's
older
brother quickly brought the girl
back
inside, but an observer reported the
family
to child protective services.
During
the trial court proceedings,
Cleveland
County District Judge Anna
Foster
excluded testimony regarding the
circumstances
of the toddler's
"streaking"
episode as irrelevant, saying
the
case centered on the parents'
interference
with an investigation.
Foster
ultimately ruled that the social
worker
was not a "state actor," thus
eliminating
applicability of the Fourth
Amendment.
The
Fourth Amendment is intended to
protect
citizens from government
actions,
not those committed by
individuals
acting on their own
authority.
For example, if a burglar
enters
a home, searches for valuables
and
seizes property, no violation of the
Fourth
Amendment has occurred.
Rather,
the burglar, if caught, could be
brought
up under criminal charges.
Government
representatives, or "state
actors"
are specifically prohibited from
unreasonable
searches and seizures by
the
Constitution, unless probable cause
exists
and a warrant is issued containing
details
of the forthcoming search and
seizure.
Foster
admitted in the lower-court
proceedings
that probable cause did not
exist
in the Stumbo case, but the social
worker
was not a state actor, so the
Fourth
Amendment did not apply, the
judge
ruled.
The
appeals court came to the same
conclusion,
but used a different tactic.
Without
addressing whether or not the
social
worker conducting the
child-abuse
investigation was a state
actor,
the court ruled that the
investigation
was not a "search" for
Fourth
Amendment purposes.
Michael
Farris, general counsel for
HSLDA,
represented the Stumbos at the
appeals
court.
"It
is outrageous for the court to say
social
workers are not state actors, or
that
the Fourth Amendment doesn't
apply.
We will argue before the state
Supreme
Court that this is a search and
is
subject to the Constitution," he said.
Farris
also pointed out that federal
courts
have already ruled in other cases
that
social workers are state actors. And
HSLDA
attorney Scott Summerville says
the
Stumbo case has raised "a nice, clean
constitutional
question that needs to be
asked
and answered."
Because
there was a dissenting opinion
in
the Stumbo appeal, the family is
granted
an automatic appeal to the state
Supreme
Court.
Previous
story:
Parents
of 2-year-old 'streaker' taken to
court
Julie
Foster is a staff reporter for
WorldNetDaily.
| |
|
