The Fight Has Officially Been Brought to a NJ Gunowner's Front Door

WOW But nothing surprises me in NJ.. They think they ALL are above the law here.... I would have done the same thing....
No warrents no reason for being here please leave and take that fake dyfs worker with you thank you!!!

Good for him!!!
 
Yeah, social media is very dangerous for a person who believes strongly in protecting their privacy.

Also I would love some information on what can be done about a CPS visit. I had a lawyer tell me that the best thing to do is cooperate but that if I did have something to hide than to outright refuse to let them enter without a warrant.

Once again after very careful thought I decided to not answer the phone if it says Child protective services, not answer the door and play like no one is at home, or if I am asked to meet them or receive a visit to have my children secured in another location. To also play very stupid on the matter altogether as if I didn't know I was supposed to have my kids present.

What happens than of course is they will nab them at school.

Too many horror stories I have heard of people even being lied to about a harmless meeting to the CPS office with their kids only to find a police officer there to make sure everything goes in their favor and a CPS worker sending you home without your kids.

I can't understand how CPS can have the authority to just pop up at your front door and demand to enter your home without even making an appointment based on a complaint (sources are never given).

The constitution clearly says that a warrant is necessary.
 
A reader's comment below the article:

… in the absence of: no probable cause, no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or will be committed…” Say, doesn’t this fit right into Hale v Henkel 201 US 43 @ 89 or sumpn? I’m sure that case cuts both ways …. properly invoked. :-). Seems this gentleman may have just become Charlie Bucket, if he plays his cards right — he has all the aces, at the moment. Key word: “Jurisdiction.”
Click to expand...

I looked it up since I was curious.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/case.html
From the Ruling....
Page 201 U. S. 74

.. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Click to expand...

and in Page 201 U. S. 89 .......

......but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way -- namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis."
Click to expand...

I like this language!
 
I found this source as a good primer

http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/fourth-amendment-rights/

Lots of room for interpretation by a social worker and police officer.

Generally though it appears they have no right to enter your property without a warrant if there is no apparent threat of immediate danger to the child is evident. Supposedly an anonymous complaint is not sufficient evidence to believe that the child or children are in imminent peril.

On the other hand if the visit involves something administrative such as whether your house is up to some kind of safety code than you can not refuse them entry.

Seizing of your child is even more open to interpretation.
 
Just pointing thing out. He said he came home and they were already in his house. Meaning his wife had let them in. Whether she was forced to or not I don't know. But fact is they were let in.

Course he had the right to end the "search" and require a warrent which he did soon as he got home.


Least I got that from the op so could be mistaken
 
So tell me legal eagles why can't the DYFS person be charged with a crime?

How about: Engaging in domestic terrorism (18 USC 2331 5 b , appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population)

Maybe Extortion?

Making a threat?

Making a terrorist threat? (if you haven't read the Pat-Riot act, almost anything can be so construed, and there are multiple definitions, take your pick.



'I ain't no lawyer', but if the shoe fits DYFS .....
 
The best defense is a good offense.I recall a case from California-Half Moon Bay. Some grade school kids were told to write an essay on something they did with a family member,one boy wrote that his grandmother took him shooting, the school authorities contacted Grandma, she told them where to go and what to do when they got there and who were they to tell HER how she was going to raise her family.
I suspect we'll see more cases like this in a attempt to drive a wedge between advocates of the RKBA and LEOs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Come and take it said:
On the other hand if the visit involves something administrative such as whether your house is up to some kind of safety code than you can not refuse them entry.
Click to expand...
Of course you can still refuse them entry, unless they have a warrant. Looking for an alleged code violation is a search, and if you have a violation you are exposed to certain potential punishments -- meaning possible "incrimination." Further, social workers are not experts in building and fire codes. They have no special knowledge that allows them to check for code violations, because that's not their job,

I worked as a building inspector for a number of years. In fact, I was working as one during the time we were adopting, as I discussed a few posts above. That's why I knew that the "adoption social worker" was wrong when she told me the house had to have a carbon monoxide detector. My house was built in 1950, and the most recent alteration was the conversion of the attic to a bedroom in 1955. My state didn't even have a building code in 1955. Carbon monoxide detectors in homes didn't enter the building code until the late 1990s or early 2000s, and even today the requirement is not retroactive. They are required in new houses and substantial renovations, but they are NOT required in existing house.

But ... that didn't even slow down Ms. Adoption Social Worker. Initially, she claimed the detectors were required by "the code." When I informed her that "the code" was my work and that they are NOT required, that was when she came back with "Well, we require them."

If a social worker starts claiming expertise in building and fire codes, that's a danger signal. It's also a boundary violation -- he/she is engaging in a specialized field for which he/she is not educated or licensed to practice.
 
Their inspections usually require looking at the childrens bedroom, making sure they have bed, proper sanitation conditions, clutter (one social worker may overlook something that another might have a fit over) that could cause an accident, sufficient food etc etc. They have a "rulebook" I assume they go by. Also a look at the Kitchen and Living areas.

They left my other rooms alone.

It was the second visit (the one about guns being safely stored away) that I should have been more angry about but I let it slide and went along while I showed them the room they didn't get to see the first time around.

Anything for the kids. When you are going through a divorce everything falls by the wayside especially when you know your x isn't a very good parent.

When you have kids you can kiss your 4th amendment goodbye pretty much.

Our government and courts have very little respect for the constitution except when it comes to giving them more power. That is why "shall" is a holy sacred word in their power clauses, but is just a placeholder with no value in the other parts.

Watch the movie "District 9" it pretty much sums it up when ISU tries to get "Mr. Christian" to pack up his little baby "prawn" and leave the alien ghettos. Once they see he has a little one they had him by the balls. lol
 
As noted in the article shows that it is OK to make false allegations of child abuse, as that is "protected" from prosecution. :eek:
 
Come and take it said:
Their inspections usually require looking at the childrens bedroom, making sure they have bed, proper sanitation conditions, clutter (one social worker may overlook something that another might have a fit over) that could cause an accident, sufficient food etc etc. They have a "rulebook" I assume they go by. Also a look at the Kitchen and Living areas.
Click to expand...
If they are there pursuant to an existing action, such as generating a custody report in connection with a divorce case, they have an official reason to be there. If they just show up at the door, there is no legal basis for them to claim entry. Let's not lose sight of the post that opened this particular discussion. No custody battle, just a child services worker showing up unannounced as a result of a photo on Facebook.

Even as an active building official, I was allowed (pursuant to state law) to enter only between the hours of 8:00 a.m and 5:00 p,m. IF there was an open building permit, work under which I was charged with inspecting. No building permit ==> no entry. If we thought there was a problem in an existing building that we needed to look at, we had to apply to a judge for an administrative search warrant. We had to spell out what we thought might be a problem and why we thought so, and we had to provide a supporting affidavit from another "competent authority." (Building inspectors and fire marshals help each other out in this -- I could use the FM as my second competent authority, and the FM could use members of the Building Department.)

I can't imagine that the laws are that much different for social workers. There's no exception for child social workers in the 4th Amendment.
 
I also seem to recall reading in the story that he got the call when social workers & (perhaps) LEOs were already in the house. If his wife gave those folks permission to be there, . . well . . , she had authority to give them that permission. Consent to search = no warrant required.
 
Dead said:
As noted in the article shows that it is OK to make false allegations of child abuse, as that is "protected" from prosecution. :eek:
Click to expand...
I think it's easy to make a case for such protection. If you're serious about protecting children, the way to do that is to encourage reporting of possible child abuse by doctors, teachers, etc. If all suspected cases are reported in good faith, there are going to be some false positives, and it makes sense to indemnify those making the reports -- they shouldn't be afraid to speak up for a child.

I'd make a sizable bet that the number of such mistaken reports far exceeds the number of malicious "false allegations."
 
Vanya said:
I'd make a sizable bet that the number of such mistaken reports far exceeds the number of malicious "false allegations."
Click to expand...
Don't bet on it. Divorce law gets really ugly, really fast. And you'd be surprised at the number of folks who have no compunction about using child protective services to "get at" just about anyone they're mad at.
 
Spats McGee said:
I also seem to recall reading in the story that he got the call when social workers & (perhaps) LEOs were already in the house. If his wife gave those folks permission to be there, . . well . . , she had authority to give them that permission. Consent to search = no warrant required.
Click to expand...

Quite true -- either spouse can grant permission to enter a private residence. Doesn't alter the fact that if the wife had NOT allowed entry the DCYS person would not have had any legal authority to demand entry.

It sounded from the quoted snippet that the wife allowed them into the house, but wasn't able to allow them access to what they wanted to see. Which was a good thing. The case might serve as an alert to all of us who are married to have a discussion with the spouse regarding such legal complexities as search warrants, and warrantless right-of-entry (only in "exigent circumstances," meaning if your house is on fire the firemen don't need a search warrant to enter and put out the fire).
 
Come and take it. said:
Once again after very careful thought I decided to not answer the phone if it says Child protective services, not answer the door and play like no one is at home, or if I am asked to meet them or receive a visit to have my children secured in another location. To also play very stupid on the matter altogether as if I didn't know I was supposed to have my kids present.
Click to expand...

And now, having posted your intent to do so on a public forum, you will have a difficult time claiming ignorance. Good luck with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top