T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Is this a good decision? Or does it set a bad precedent?

Cuda wrote:Yet they say it's totally ok to make certain mvscals give up their 4th Amendment protections because they're recipients of tax money.

Cuda wrote:Let me get this straight... the 9th Cirsuit is supposed to be reeeeeely liberal, right?

Yet they say it's totally ok to make certain mvscals give up their 4th Amendment protections because they're recipients of tax money.

Kinda makes one think the left is being disingenuous on the warrantless eavesdropping thingie, doesn't it?

Oh, wait... when the Left does it, that makes it OK.

Bode Nixon.

Jsc810 wrote:WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected a challenge today to San Diego County's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in.

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the District Attorney's Office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid.

Failure to submit to the searches, which can last an hour, disqualifies applicants from assistance.

The 10-year-old program was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six single parents who were seeking assistance. The welfare applicants argued that the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, protects them from the home visits.

Link to news article

From the 9th Circuit Opinion:

In 1997, the San Diego County District Attorney (“D.A.”) initiated a program whereby all San Diego County residents who submit welfare applications under California’s welfare program (“CalWORKS”), and are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility, are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. Under Project 100%, all applicants receive a home visit from an investigator employed by the D.A.’s office. The visit includes a “walk through” to gather eligibility information that is then turned over to eligibility technicians who compare that information with information supplied by the applicant. Specifically, the investigator views items confirming that: (1) the applicant has the amount of assets claimed; (2) the applicant has an eligible dependent child; (3) the applicant lives in California; and (4) an “absent” parent does not live in the residence.

When applicants submit an application for welfare benefits, they are informed that they will be subject to a mandatory home visit in order to verify their eligibility. Applicants are also informed that the home visit must be completed prior to aid being granted, but are not given notice of the exact date and time the visit will occur. The visits are generally made within 10 days of receipt of the application and during regular business hours, unless a different time is required to accommodate an applicant’s schedule. The home visits are conducted by investigators from the Public Assistance Fraud Division of the D.A.’s office, who are sworn peace officers with badges and photo identification. The investigators wear plain clothes and do not carry weapons.

The actual home visit consists of two parts: an interview with the applicant regarding information submitted during the intake process, and a “walk through” of the home. The visit takes anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, with five to 10 minutes generally allocated to the “walk through.” If the applicant refuses to allow a home visit, the investigator immediately terminates the visit and reports that the applicant failed to cooperate. This generally results in the denial of benefits.1 The denial of welfare aid is the only consequence of refusing to allow the home visit; no criminal or other sanctions are imposed for refusing consent.

The “walk through” portion of the home visit is also conducted with the applicant’s consent. The applicant is asked to lead the “walk through” and the investigator is trained to look for items in plain view. The investigator will also ask the applicant to view the interior of closets and cabinets, but will only do so with the applicant’s express permission.2 While the investigators are required to report evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing for further investigation and prosecution, there is no evidence that any criminal prosecutions for welfare fraud have stemmed from inconsistencies uncovered during a Project 100% home visit.3

Link to 9th Circuit decision

Is this a good decision? Or does it set a bad precedent?

mvscal wrote:You accept government assistance, you accept government policies.

Jsc810 wrote: Where will it end?

Jsc810 wrote:There are lots of federal aid programs besides welfare, anyone you know have a home loan with the Federal Housing Administration? Question: if it is ok to search welfare homes without a warrant, then is it also ok to search FHA homes without a warrant? What about corporations who receive public assistance, could they be subject to warrantless searches? What if you get Social Security? Medicare?

Where will it end?

Moving Sale wrote: Do you EVER get tired of being a tool?

BTW- If they don't want to be searched this way they may want to get new housing.

Jsc810 wrote:There are lots of federal aid programs besides welfare,

anyone you know have a home loan with the Federal Housing Administration?

Question: if it is ok to search welfare homes without a warrant, then is it also ok to search FHA homes without a warrant?

What about corporations who receive public assistance, could they be subject to warrantless searches?

What if you get Social Security? Medicare?

BBMarley wrote:
Last week I stopped at the Acme

BBMarley wrote:Fuck 'em.. every one.

Last week I stopped at the Acme to pick up some stuff on my way home from work. There were 4 Mexicans in front of me that had all their shit separated into two piles- wasn't sure why. First pile was done- and they pulled out the government food stamps to pay for it. Then they pulled out a knot of bills as big as my fist to pay for the rest... presumably because the food stamps didn't cover that shit.

So- fuck them. They are getting government assistance like this- the government has every right to make sure they actually deserve it and are using it properly

Mister Bushice wrote:like it fucking matters who we vote for.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - U.S. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he plans to introduce legislation that would direct the Federal Reserve to create a rating system for credit cards.

The highest-risk cards, such as those that allow the issuing bank to raise the interest rate at any time without stating a reason, would receive one star. The lowest-risk cards would get five stars.

At a news conference at Portland State University, Wyden noted that that U.S. households had an average of $6,900 in credit card debt at the end of September, an increase of 41 percent from a year earlier.

"These credit card debts are hitting Oregon families like a wrecking ball," he said Tuesday.

Wyden said he and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will introduce the legislation next week. He said the system would give consumers a way to judge the riskiness of a credit-card offer without having to plow through all that fine print.

BATTLE GROUND, Wash. - A man accused of stealing thousands of dollars from his church has been elected to office in Battle Ground.

Art Nelson faces 12 counts of theft and will go to trial on Dec. 19. Members of Grace Fellowship in Ridgefield, where Nelson was a deacon, claim he wrote himself thousands of dollars worth of checks that were actually meant for charity.

On Tuesday, the final election results were tallied and Nelson came out on top in his bid for a seat on the Battle Ground City Council over competitor Tom Schultz.

KATU News called Nelson and told him he had won the election, but he refused to speak to us. He claims we are biased and have never asked him for his side of the story, even though he does admit that we have called and stopped by his home multiple times.

If Nelson is convicted of a felony, he cannot hold office.

Mikey wrote:Calm down Dins. Really. Take a red or something.

Mikey wrote:Did you consider the possibility that a rating system might actually encourage some people to read the fine print?

Jsc810 wrote:Dins why are you so worked up over a fringe candidate who will get less than 3%?