[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But I think you invite the level of officers or private individuals making such calls when they have suspicions, even if they aren't grounded in actual evidence.

If I got such a phone call, I'd call the cops. If the cops got such a phone call, I'd expect them to investigate the claim, but I wouldn't expect a judge to give them a search warrant to conduct a raid unless we could establish first that even such a person existed, which can't actually be done in this case.

Fraudulent calls are illegal. If an officer made them the case would be thrown out and if a citizen made them they'd be arrested. That's how this policy works.

Ok so if you as a child services worker or police received such a call, they should "investigate" but not go to the house? This was only a "raid" because it was on such a large scale. It was only on such a large scale because we're talking compound not private residence.

What's the burden of proof here, you want them to go find Jane's birth certificate first so you know she exists? Talk to teachers? Talk to everyone except for Jane, the 15 year old pregnant girl being molested by her father?
The one who might be in serious danger if her father finds out she called?

I'm happy about the outcome here, but I'm not interested having the standard be something like "forget long established civil liberties*, as long as the outcome pays off."

*like: 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.

Probable cause is an allegation of child abuse where there needs to be an in person investigation (warrant) to determine the veracity of the complaint. What is the burden of proof you want for a child abuse situation?

It's not just a problem with the person who placed the phone call; it's a problem with allowing the use of a faulty standard of proof that eventually is likely to affect not just the guilty as in this case, but all of us. Look at the other thread about the cops shooting the innocent guy more than 50 times. It's really hard to make the general case that the big problem is that our standards for police action are too high.

Strawman.

What burden of proof would you have found acceptable in this case?

ETA: the fact that the call wasn't placed by the person named in the call makes it worst than an anonymous call. It's actually a fraudulent call.

Yes, and (as far as we know to this date) the police/DCFS operated in good faith on that phone call. They went to find the abused child, they found what they have called widespread abuse of children and they acted as they would have if they'd found abuse during a domestic violence call, a traffic stop, a drug bust, etc.