Posted on 05/21/2008 2:53:57 PM PDT by Dengar01
Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.
In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.
Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.
"We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already," he told WND.
Crampton said this type of overstep is common among social workers, and they often do not give it a second thought.
"The social worker performed these strip searches as a matter of routine, estimating that in perhaps one-half of the 300 or so cases she handled every year she subjected kids to a partial disrobing," he said. "In fact, she testified that she considered it so routine that she did not bother to discuss her intentions with her supervisor, even though she spoke to her on her way to the school."
The state had several social workers file affidavits saying they would have followed the same procedure. Crampton said, "That is an alarming admission, and we suspect you would find a similar pattern in social service offices all over America."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The parents sued her and won, the "social worker" should be thrown in jail. These people are absolute monsters! When I have children they will be home schooled. I can't fathom that these social service monsters can bust into private schools now.
BUMP! We are losing our freedoms to these socialist monsters, it is time we stand up to DCFS and the rest of the monsters who are more harmful to children than a child molestor.
Nanny knows best.
Dana Gresbach violated the children’s Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.
I know my ex-wife very, very well and this b*tch from the state would be collecting her teeth from the gutter after trying this with my kids.
Also I find it interesting this occured at a Christian School. I would love to see Ms. Gresbach try this at a Muslim School, she’d leave missing her head.
Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.
“We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already,” he told WND.
More people need to sue these jack booted thugs. This isn’t a renegade department, just SOP.
spanking is illegal??? Is that a Wisconsin thing?
“I would love to see Ms. Gresbach try this at a Muslim School”
Coward wouldn’t dare.
I wasn’t aware that CPS could enter a PRIVATE school.
But they can and have entered PUBLIC schools and even can remove children from the school ALL WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PARENT. They have the authority to do so when ever they wish. You have relinquished your custodial rights whenever your child is left at a public school. Period.
Are they more harmful perhaps than a kidnapper?
How about a rapist?
Maybe we should send out members of the state legislature to do this work.
No matter whether you like the folks doing it or hate them, the work will, in fact, be done because there are situations where something must be done.
Ever hear of Sylvia Likens? Just look up Sylvia Marie Likens on the internet. That was the big news my Junior year in highschool. There are some folks named Likens in my highschool class ~ her cousins.
All of these people, even the killers, would have benefited greatly from the intervention of the social workers, or CPS, or whatever you want to call them.
It's cases like this that serve to justify local "Family Services" departments.
Spanking is child abuse to CPS. And the parents are guilty until proven innocent, too.
Sadly, this kind of abuse is not uncommon. And if the social worker sees so much as a mosquito bite or diaper rash, she will fill out her report as “substantiated abuse”. Then she will leave the parents to try and fight this in court at their own expense, and also the parents will always have an abuse charge on their record, even if they win.
Applied to the case sub judice, the inquiry is whether it was reasonable for Gresbach to believe that Reetz's consent to interview the children included consent to conduct a search of the children's bodies. We find that it was not. Based on Gresbach's representations that she needed to “see the children” to investigate a child abuse allegation, and that Reetz need not be present for the interview, Reetz allowed Gresbach to speak to the children privately in order to obtain their statements about an allegation of child abuse. A reasonable person would not have interpreted this to mean that Reetz authorized Gresbach to search the children's bodies. It is undisputed that Gresbach did not ask Reetz for permission to search the children for injuries. Gresbach argues that Reetz's “general consent” to interview included the consent to inspect the children's bodies, but she cites to no supporting relevant authority, and we are unaware of any case under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that proscribes this notion.
In some instances, the line implicating Fourth Amendment concerns is blurred when it applies to the government and child abuse investigations. See Heck, 327 F.3d at 514 (acknowledging that there are circumstances in which the law of warrant and probable cause does not work effectively in the child removal or child examination context); Landstrom, 892 F.2d at 676 (holding that a search or seizure of a child by a state social worker must be “reasonable,” but that does not necessarily require probable cause or a warrant); Daryl H., 801 F.2d at 902 (stating that the government must fulfill its responsibility to protect the young under difficult circumstances). Recognizing the sensitive nature of these types of investigations, officials may make a search or seizure under exigent circumstances, where they have reason to believe life or limb is in jeopardy.FN3 See Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1010. We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances-to do so would be imprudent. In these circumstances, caseworkers can take preliminary steps short of searches, such as interviewing the child and a parent, or obtaining a warrant either personally to conduct a search or to have a doctor perform the search. See Roe v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services, 299 F.3d 395, 407 (5th Cir.2002).
FN3. Heck foreclosed the justification of the “special needs” exemption in this context, because states have “the ability to take immediate action to ensure the physical safety of a child suspected of abuse who is located on private property” through the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Heck, 327 F.3d at 517 n. 20. While it seems unlikely from the record that Gresbach could have reasonably suspected the children's safety was at risk, she does not raise this issue on appeal. Gresbach advocates the position that a warrant is for police officers, not caseworkers, and that the probable cause and warrant requirement are more appropriately geared towards the investigation of the abusers, not the victims. We disagree. The Fourth Amendment preserves the right to be free from warrantless searches by the government, without limiting that right to one type of official. See Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808, 813-14 (9th Cir.1999). The requirement that a child welfare worker obtain the equivalent of a warrant before conducting a search (absent exigent circumstances) can effectively protect children, without having to excuse workers from obtaining advance judicial approval of searches and seizures. Heck, 327 F.3d at 514; see Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 604. Additionally, nothing in the record supports Gresbach's belief that obtaining a warrant would have delayed and thus compromised her investigation.
Because Gresbach conducted a search of each child on private property without consent, a warrant or probable cause, or exigent circumstances, Ian and Alexis's Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches were violated.
Wasn’t there a case recently of a student getting strip searched at school for being suspected of having an Advil or something?
Ok, I have some questions for you.
How many families have been HARMED by CPS compared to those who may have been helped?
And does that harm justify the few who are helped?
So, spanking is illegal, but strip searches aren’t?
Can’t make this stuff up!
According to the decision, CPS was given permission to INTERVIEW the kids, although they were not given permission to search (which is what the lawsuit was about).
Yes, I remember that thread.
The strip search was done by the school nurse under orders from a principle, I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.