Does a caseworker have the authority to effect a warrant?

Question

does a caseworker, social worker or other state agent, in regards to child protection, have the authority to effect a warrant to enter a home, or is this authority reserved for law enforcement officers? please include citations if possible

Answer 1

Attention: Child Protective Services, Police Officer and Judicial Officer.
Are you aware?
That aiding and abetting the kidnapping of a Child without a warrant is a CRIME?


1. That you are not immune, under Miller V. Gammie because you are not employees of the court.
2. Under Calabretta V. Floyd, you can not invent immunity?
3. Under AB2749 you can not enter a home without:
A. if there is a likelihood of imminent harm;
B. if they have a warrant issued by a court; or
C. if they have your permission.
4. Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 Pattern and Practice It is unlawful for any governmental authority, over juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
A. Excessive Force
B. Discriminatory Harassment
C. False Arrest
D. Coercive Sexual Conduct
E . Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
5. Burt v. County of Orange (2004) , Cal.App.4th : Right to, due process.
6. In Ireland v Edwards,(1998), defamation as:
A. a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff,
B. an unprivileged publication to a third party,
C. fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and
D. either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by the publication (defamation per quod).
7.
Walsh vs. Erie
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."

8.TROXEL v. GRANVILLE 99-138 2000
The supreme clause still is active even in the face of such exaggerated powers usurped by a social worker. NO one is above the law, not even an ignorant of the law social worker.

9. CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON
On March 8,2004
The Supreme Court Ruled that Hearsay Evidence in Child-abuse / Neglect and Domestic Violence cases IS NOT ADMISSABLE. Parents have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to confront their ACCUSSERS under the SIXTH AMMENDENT. What ever they are called by profession: DCFS,CPS the AAG, DA or State Attorney: MUST NOW COMPLY WITH THE SIXTH AMMENDENT .

1)
When a child is picked up by a social worker without a warrant, without probable cause. That the social worker never had immunity under Miller v. Gammie, 01-15491 Mandate issued July 31, 2003.

2)
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999) "involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency."
3) http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200408300.asp
California. AB 2749 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 2749 provides two important protections for all parents who are investigated by Child Protective Services for child abuse or neglect.
1) AB 2749 requires that "a representative of a child protective services agency performing an investigation ... of suspected child abuse or neglect ..., shall advise the individual of the complaints or allegations against him or her...."
2) AB 2749 specifically requires child protective services social worker to be trained concerning their duties "to protect the legal rights... of children and families..." they are investigating. In accordance with the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects your privacy and the privacy of your home and property, social workers should now be trained that they can only enter your home under one of three conditions:
1) if there is a likelihood of imminent harm;
2) if they have a warrant issued by a court; or
3) if they have your permission.

4) FBI 14141 and
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice
This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:

1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests

5.
Burt v. County of Orange (2004) , Cal.App.4th
The heightened need for fundamentally fair procedures when trial courts determine child abuse and neglect issues in civil actions is illustrated in Scalchi v. Scalchi, On procedural due process rights for those subject to governmental child abuse reports, see Burt v. County of Orange, 120 Cal. App. 4th 273 (Cal. App. 4th 2004).
6.
In Ireland v Edwards, 230 Mich App 607, 614; 584 NW2d 632 (1998), this Court identified the four elements of defamation as:
1. a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff,
2. an unprivileged publication to a third party,
3. fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and
4. either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by the publication (defamation per quod).

7.
Walsh vs. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, Case No.3:01CV7588
Judge Carr wrote: "Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."

8. TROXEL v. GRANVILLE 99-138 2000
In response to Tommie Granville's federal constitutional challenge, the State Supreme Court broadly held that Wash. Rev. Code §26.10.160(3) (Supp. 1996) was invalid on its face under the Federal Constitution. [n1] Despite the nature of this judgment, Justice O'Connor would hold that the Washington visitation statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only as applied. Ante, at 6, 8, 14-15. I agree with Justice Souter, ante, at 1, and n. 1 (opinion concurring in judgment), that this approach is untenable.

a) The Social worker deceived you into believing they can remove a child without a search warrant. Forcing entry and getting an officer to aid and abed in the collusion of the crime of a trespasser void ab initio.
b) Impersonated a government official.
c) The Social worker is neither a police officer or an officer of the court.
There are TWO lawfully excusable conditions for seizing property or People:

a) A warrant of the law, or
b) first-hand observation of a felony being committed.

That is not just the law. That is constitutionally mandated.

2) Child Protective Service a division of Social Security then perpetrates fraud on the whole system.

3) If the Child Protective Worker now seizes your child which is lawfully your property without due processes, falsely arrest they child in your care and control without a felony charge the social worker has committed a HANNOUSE crime on your child, an intentional tort.

4) What Branch of the Government is the Social Worker?
Legislature, branch of government empowered to make, change, or repeal its laws.
The executive branch of Government enforces the laws of the land.
Judicial Branch has the power of a court to judge the constitutionality of the laws of a government or the acts of a government official.

5) No Policy or Costume may violate the Constitution, and person's acting under color of law is in fact committing treason against the Constitution.

A voidable order is an order that must be declared void by a judge to be void; a void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void. ONLY AN INSPECTION OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE SHOWING THAT THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR VIOLATED A PERSON'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.


No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery..." United States v. Peters... A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restriction of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases..." Sterling v. Constantin... http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/cooperaaron.htm

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution."...
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgements of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgements, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery..." United States v. Peters... A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restriction of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases..." Sterling v. Constantin...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=287&invol=378

In the present case, the findings of fact made by the District Court are fully supported by the evidence. They leave no room for doubt that there was no military necessity which, from any point of view, could be taken to justify the action of the Governor in attempting to limit [287 U.S. 378, 404] complainants' oil production, otherwise lawful. Complainants had a constitutional right to resort to the federal court to have the validity of the commission's orders judicially determined. There was no exigency which justified the Governor in attempting to enforce by executive or military order the restriction which the District Judge had restrained pending proper judicial inquiry. If it be assumed that the Governor was entitled to declare a state of insurrection and to bring military force to the aid of civil authority, the proper use of that power in this instance was to maintain the federal court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and not to attempt to override it; to aid in making its process effective and not to nullify it, to remove, and not to create, obstructions to the exercise by the complainants of their rights as judicially declared. It is also plain that there was no adequate remedy at law for the redress of the injury, and, as the evidence showed that the Governor's orders were an invasion under color of state law of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, the District Court did not err in granting the injunction.

TITLE 28 > PART IV> CHAPTER 85 > § 1343.
Sec. 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

CLER$$RULE 03-29-05 10:46:40 PGT•CTRULE 36 SUPREME COURT RULE 29
document to submit a notarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the details of the filing and stating that the filing took place on a particular date within the permitted time.
3. Any document required by these Rules to be served may be served personally, by mail, or by third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days on each party to the proceeding at or before the time of filing. If the document has been prepared as required by Rule 33.1, three copies shall be served on each other party separately represented in the proceeding. If the document has been prepared as required by Rule 33.2, service of a single copy on each other separately represented party suffices. If personal service is made, it shall consist of delivery at the office of the counsel of record, either to counsel or to an employee therein. If service is by mail or third-party commercial carrier, it shall consist of depositing the document with the United States Postal Service, with no less than first-class postage prepaid, or delivery to the carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days, addressed to counsel of record at the proper address. When a party is not represented by counsel, service shall be made on the party, personally, by mail, or by commercial carrier. Ordinarily, service on a party must be by a manner at least as expeditious as the manner used to file the document with the Court.

Adamson v. California June 23, 1947., The first ten amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties. The people wanted and demanded a Bill of Rights written into their Constitution. The amendments embodying the Bill of Rights were intended to curb all branches of the Federal Government in the fields touched by the amendments -- Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments were pointedly aimed at confining exercise of power by courts.

Puckett v. Cox & Gideon v. Wainwright
http://www.caught.net/prose/immunity.htm

A PRIVATE CITIZEN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983
While a private citizen cannot ordinarily be held liable under § 1983 because that statute requires action under color of state law, if a private citizen conspires with a state actor, then the private citizen is subject to § 1983 liability. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) quoting Bowman v. City of Franklin, 980 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir. 1992) "To establish § 1983 liability through a conspiracy theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents." Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

LIST WHO VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS (YES EVERYONE!)
Enter default of defendant (names): _______________________, ________________________,
___________________, ____________________, _____________________, ET AL Respondents, No, further Entry into this case maybe made, default limit is reached.
1. Default entered as requested on (date): Proper service was made (date) ________________
the Federal Rules of court state you have 15 days to respond, and effective failure to respond is now expired at of date date __
2. Default entered as requested (state reason): Failure to reply.
3. In the Sum of 15,000,000. Per defendant: Violations of Constitution.
4. Memorandum of costs (required if money judgment requested). Costs and disbursements are as follows
5. TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1988.
6. Clerk's filing fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Waived
7. Process server's fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waived
8. Other (specify): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,000,000.00 per color of law violation
9. Enter default of defendant (names): ___________________________,___________________________,
___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ET AL Respondents,
( Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
Per Defendant, Violation of Constitutional rights by custom & policy.
TOTAL _______defendants time violations is the sum of _____________________
Payable in gold or silver per
Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Manqué and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS > Rule 12
(e) If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
VII. JUDGMENT > Rule 55
the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by representative, the party's representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any statute of the United States.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS > Rule 8.
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.
(f) Construction of Pleadings; All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

A caseworker does have the right if they have a warrant from the judge who works in family court or an emergency warrant placing the child into custody of the state. However a caseworker cannot break down a door, the police will do that for them and assist to control the situation and ensure safety.

Answer 4

The CPS/DJFS (Children's Protective Services / Department of Job and Family Services) doesn't need a warrant -- here's why.

The police are a part of the executive branch . . . they have nothing to do with making laws -- they just enforce the ones already enacted.

The CPS / DJFS are part of a great big body called "administrative law." That means that these organizations are administrative agencies, and whatever policies they establish as an organization are considered law, as long as they are not ruled unconstitutional.

The reason that they DON'T have to have a warrant is the same reason the police wouldn't have to have a warrant if they were outside and heard somebody scream "Help, he's trying to kill me."

It's called "Exigent circumstances." It means that they have within their knowledge information profound enough to persuade them to believe that the children in that home are in immediate danger, and in order to protect the children, their immediate intervention is warranted. . . so, they can enter -- without a warrant.

and the case at courtwatcher.com says: "5Our conclusion that disputed facts as viewed by the district court in the light most favorable to plaintiffs-appellees support a conclusion that defendants violated clearly established law by no means restricts the authority of law enforcement and child protective officers to seek protective custody of a child when they have legitimate concerns for the child's safety. Rather, our conclusion hinges upon the district court's finding that "[d]efendants acknowledged Julie was in no imminent danger at the time they sought the order and the facts suggest it was secured only through distortion, misrepresentation and omission." Malik, 987 F. Supp. at 882."

Which means -- essentially -- the case that the above individual is trying to use to day that they CAN'T enter your home . . . means that they CAN'T enter your home IF they know that there is no imminent danger. . . otherwise, they can.

Answer 5

Depends on the state. In GA a caseworker would have a law enforcement officer present. Caseworkers don't have arrest powers.

Answer 6

Child protection agents and social caseworkers must submit to police department head their request for whatever police warrant to be issued. They must state their request, citing reasons--normally written memo style. The receiving police department head then forwards this to a judge--who has the empowerment to authorize the warrant.

The police department head then assigns whomever officers to carry out the warrant/judge's order.

Answer 7

In Virginia a case worker must be accompanied by a law enforcement officer in order to effect a warrant.

Answer 8

If a case worker has suspicions of abuse or neglect they get law enforcement involved and have kids taken away

Answer 9

No they don't need a warrant to enter a Home just an allegation that they have to investigate

Answer 10

not in ks that i know of but it depends on the state. social workers have a lot of power in regards to child protection.

Answer 11

If you click here on the link you can download for free Act of War Direct Action: http://bitly.com/1qDB4YF

it's completely free and it's very fast to install
Act of War: Direct Action is visually impressive, thrilling and well-paced game.
I love it!