Chief Judge Emeritus Lawrence K. Karlton (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California) ruled yesterday that social workers who enter a family home to investigate alleged child abuse without a warrant or proper evidence of an emergency violate the constitutional rights of the family.

The court’s ruling came in a case brought by Robert and Shirley Calabretta of Woodland, California, against a social worker and police officer who insisted on entering the family home on November 10, 1994, despite Mrs. Calabretta’s refusal of entry. The Calabrettas sued the social worker, the police officer, and the city and county agencies involved for damages and injunctive relief for violating their federal civil rights.

The judge held that “absent consent, either a warrant or exigent circumstances was necessary for a police officer and a social worker to secure entrance to the Calbretta’s home.”

Michael Farris, president of Home School Legal Defense Association, who is lead council for the Calabrettas said, “thousands of families every month are told that they must let social workers and police officers into their homes to conduct child abuse investigations. Invariably, they are told that the law does not require either warrants or true emergencies. This ruling makes it clear that these claims are wrong. The Fourth Amendment applies just as much to child abuse investigations as it does to any other government search and seizure.”

The Calabrettas are members of Home School Legal Defense Association.

 Farris pointed out that of the over two million reported cases of abuse or neglect each year, 60% are ruled “unfounded” by the child abuse authorities themselves. “In these cases,” Farris said, “children are subjected to frightening investigations and often are strip-searched. Such investigations do far more harm than good for children.”

“The biggest problem is the acceptance by social workers of anonymous tips. These reports are not valid evidence standing alone and should never be used to coerce an entry into a home,” Farris said.

Yesterday’s ruling that came in cross-motions for summary judgment in which both sides requested the court to rule in their favor prior to trial. The judge ruled in the Calabretta’s favor on the fundamental legal question of their Fourth Amendment rights, but will require a full trial on certain factual questions. The most important of these questions is whether Mrs. Calabretta “freely and voluntarily” consented to the entry into her home. The court placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the police officer admitted that he “indicated that if she continued to refuse to let us in that ultimately a decision could be made to force entry into the home.”

The defendants may appeal this matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The District Court relied heavily on a case from this Court of Appeals that ruled that when police officers investigate child abuse, they must obey the general rules of the Fourth Amendment. The social workers in this case contended that they need not follow the same rules imposed on police officers. The judge expressly rejected that defense and held social workers to the same constitutional standards.