Protect Your Family~Know Your Rights: AZ Sheriffs Can't Read Fourth Amendment

According to the article noted at the bottom of this blog, a statement made:

"The deputies appealed, claiming that they should be immune from liability because, they said, the right to be free from unreasonable searches was not clear enough for them to realize that threatening to remove a child if not allowed inside the home violated the Fourth Amendment. "

_____________

Thought I missed something, so for all of us to read. Do you understand these words?? as it seems the sheriffs in AZ didn't understand. (Please note, I also have a link in Spanish)
Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Enmienda 4
El derecho de los habitantes de que sus personas, domicilios, papeles y efectos se hallen a salvo de pesquisas y aprehensiones arbitrarias, será inviolable, y no se expedirán al efecto mandamientos que no se apoyen en un motivo verosimil, estén corroborados mediante juramento o protesta y describan con particularidad el lugar que deba ser registrado y las personas o cosas que han de ser detenidas o embargadas.

___________________

I wonder what grade the sheriffs got in the US Constitution Test??? (Ref: http://nfpcar.org/Constitution/index.htm & Most Definitely: http://nfpcar.org/Miranda/ )

_________________

Here is the story:
Original Link: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/az/201101240.asp

Appellate Briefs Filed in Arizona Illegal-Search Case

In March of 2005, two social workers and six deputy sheriffs descended on the home of John and Tiffany Loudermilk to “investigate” a two-month-old anonymous tip that their house was unsafe for children. After almost an hour of threats, the social workers finally threatened to take all of their children into custody if not allowed inside. The Loudermilks reluctantly agreed. The assembled officials took less than five minutes to determine that the allegations in the anonymous report were false.

HSLDA reviewed the case and sued the social workers, their attorney, and four of the deputies for violating the Loudermilks’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. We also sued the social workers for threatening to remove their children without justification.

The judge denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in September 2007, and then denied their motions for summary judgment in March 2010. The deputies appealed, claiming that they should be immune from liability because, they said, the right to be free from unreasonable searches was not clear enough for them to realize that threatening to remove a child if not allowed inside the home violated the Fourth Amendment.

Click here to read their brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
In HSLDA’s answering brief, we argued that the law has been clearly established for at least 10 years, ever since we successfully sued social workers on behalf of the Calabretta family in a similar case. We also demonstrated that any reasonable officer should know that threatening to remove a child to gain the “cooperation” of the parents is inherently coercive and that the officers should have known so at the time.
Within the next few weeks the appellate court will either decide the case or will schedule oral argument. In the meantime, proceedings in the trial court are on hold.