Fourth Amendment, Wyman v. James

[A18]

Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971)

Appellee, a beneficiary under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, after receiving several days' advance notice, refused to permit a caseworker to visit her home. Following a hearing and advice that assistance would consequently be terminated, appellee brought this suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that a home visitation is a search and, when not consented to or supported by a warrant based on probable cause, would violate her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court upheld appellee's constitutional claim.

Held: The home visitation provided for by New York law in connection with the AFDC program is a reasonable administrative tool and does not violate any right guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

[Blue Rectangle]

Looks sound to me.

[A18]

Very unsound, constitutionally.

Could a state require a welfare recipient to give up his right to free speech? What about other discretionary state benefits, such as employment?

[Emsworth]

The decision was unsound.

Firstly, the court held that the visitation did not constitute a "search" of the appellee's home. Needless to say, such a view is utterly ridiculous. The authorities were not searching for specific evidence of criminal activity, but this is not the only type of search precluded by the Fourth Amendment: all unreasonable searches are forbidden.

Secondly, the court held that even if the visitation constitutes a search, it was a reasonable one. This is a decidedly unsound view. The search was not based on even an iota of suspicion; it was completely and utterly arbitrary, conducted at the whim of the government. Clearly, therefore, it was not a reasonable search.

It is true that states may compel individuals to give up certain rights in return for discretionary benefits. However, the rights given up must be reasonably related to the benefit in question. I see no connection between receiving welfare benefits and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Blue Rectangle]

It is true that states may compel individuals to give up certain rights in return for discretionary benefits. However, the rights given up must be reasonably related to the benefit in question. I see no connection between receiving welfare benefits and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

This point is addressed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The need for visitation by a caseworker and the welfare assistance provided by the government are directly related.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The need for visitation by a caseworker and the welfare assistance provided by the government are directly related.

A search is not reasonable merely because the government feels that it might serve somebody's "paramount needs." The requirement for probable cause is made clear by the Fourth Amendment itself.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The need for visitation by a caseworker and the welfare assistance provided by the government are directly related.

A search is not reasonable merely because the government feels that it might serve somebody's "paramount needs." The requirement for probable cause is made clear by the Fourth Amendment itself.

Probable cause does not apply because criminal conduct is not alleged for justification of the search.  The justification is that the government has a need to ensure that its money is being spent properly.  Note that James was never accused of a crime.  Note also that her refusal to allow the search was not met with police officers forcing a search.  The only "punishment" James received was termination of benefits.

What if this had been a defense contractor that received funding from the government to built jets.  Could the government send inspectors to check that quality manufacturing practices were employed, or would they need a search warrant.  If a search warrant is required, how would they go about getting one?  Would the government be justified in canceling the contract and demanding its money refunded if the company refused to allow inspections?

[Emsworth]

Probable cause does not apply because criminal conduct is not alleged for justification of the search.

I agree that criminal conduct is not alleged as justification of the search. But whenever that is the case, the search is ipso facto unreasonable. The very purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent the government from searching private property, except when there is an actual, reasonable expectation of discovering incriminating evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I noted, however, the government may condition the grant of a discretionary benefit on the surrender of constitutional right, but only when that right is related to the benefit. The right to be free from unreasonable searches is entirely unrelated to receiving welfare benefits. But when a defense contractor is building jets, and the government wishes to inspect those jets, there is an obvious nexus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Note also that her refusal to allow the search was not met with police officers forcing a search.  The only "punishment" James received was termination of benefits.

What if this had been a defense contractor that received funding from the government to built jets.  Could the government send inspectors to check that quality manufacturing practices were employed, or would they need a search warrant.

As I noted, however, the government may condition the grant of a discretionary benefit on the surrender of constitutional right, but only when that right is related to the benefit. The right to be free from unreasonable searches is entirely unrelated to receiving welfare benefits. But when a defense contractor is building jets, and the government wishes to inspect those jets, there is an obvious nexus.

And yet checking that the living conditions of the child that the adult was receiving funds to help raise is not such a relation?  You've gone off the deep end here my friend.  The connection is quite obvious.

[Emsworth]

And yet checking that the living conditions of the child that the adult was receiving funds to help raise is not such a relation? 

The condition of the child can quite easily be checked at a government office. A "visitation" of the whole home is quite unnecessary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And yet checking that the living conditions of the child that the adult was receiving funds to help raise is not such a relation?

The condition of the child can quite easily be checked at a government office. A "visitation" of the whole home is quite unnecessary.

By that same logic it would sufficent to inspect the jets once they had left the factory.  The condtions a child lives in have a material impact on that child's well being and are not something that can be reasonably determined by indirect scrutiny.