Illegal searches

The U.S. Supreme Court this week missed a prime opportunity to stand up for the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches.

Instead, the justices on Monday turned down a California case, letting stand a decision that sanctioned routine government searches of homes occupied by welfare recipients.

The issue arose in San Diego County, where those who apply for welfare benefits must agree to allow county officials to inspect their homes. If they refuse, the taxpayer-funded checks are denied.

County officials argue the searches — conducted with the residents in the home — are necessary to prevent fraud. Inspectors check for the amount of assets claimed, whether the family is actually run by a single parent and how many children live in the home.

All this may seem reasonable on the surface. After all, welfare fraud costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year across the country. And shouldn’t those who seek taxpayer handouts expect some scrutiny in return?

A federal judge ruled for San Diego County, and a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the decision. Although the Fourth Amendment does indeed prevent warrantless searches of private homes, the court decided these inspections are different because they do not seek evidence of a crime.

Unfortunately, the majority’s logic is fraught with holes. Isn’t welfare fraud a crime? Besides, if inspectors stumble upon a stash of pot, an unregistered weapon or evidence of child pornography, are we to believe they simply ignore it?

The county admits that no welfare applicant has ever been denied benefits or prosecuted because of something that turned up during a home inspection. And if county officials do indeed have evidence that an individual is illegally receiving benefits, they are perfectly free to seek a warrant in order to investigate their suspicions.

This policy “is especially atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive government entitlements,” noted Judge Harry Pregerson, one of eight 9th Circuit judges who argued that the full appeals court should revisit the issue. “The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsidies.”

Now there’s an idea.

But in the meantime, Judge Pregerson is correct. San Diego County’s policy is an overly intrusive affront to the Fourth Amendment — and the U.S. Supreme Court should have said so.