# James v. Goldberg

> District Court, S.D. New York · August 18, 1969 · 303 F. Supp. 935

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660355

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara JAMES, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Maurice James, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jack R. GOLDBERG, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York; George K. Wyman, Individually and as Commissioner of the State of New York Department of Social Services, Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** August 18, 1969
- **Citations:** 303 F. Supp. 935; 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12560
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by MeLEAN
- **Judges:** Melean, Feinberg, McLean, Tenney
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660355

## Opinion text

MeLEAN, District Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the court’s conclusion in this case. We are concerned here with a program of public assistance to dependent children who are to be cared for in their own homes. 42 U.S.C. § 601 . It is essential that the welfare workers who administer this program enter the children’s home to ascertain the conditions under which they live. The purpose of the visit is to assist the children, not to catch the children’s mother in a violation of the law. To my mind it is unrealistic to regard this visit as a “search,” and even more so to hold it to be an unreasonable search.
The court’s opinion does not make clear what showing is to be made to obtain the warrant which the court considers necessary. If a warrant can issue only upon a showing of probable cause that the law has been violated, then the fundamental purpose of the program is ignored. Aid to dependent children becomes in effect another criminal statute. If, on the other hand, the welfare worker can obtain a warrant merely by pointing out the need to inspect the home in order to carry out her duties, then the warrant is a mere formality. The need is evident. A welfare worker’s time should not be wasted in elaborating the obvious. Reading leases (if in fact there are any), birth certificates, school records and the like, cannot be an adequate substitute for first-hand observation of living conditions in the home. What the warrant will do, in my opinion, is to introduce a hostile arm’s length element into the relationship between the welfare worker and the mother of the children, a relationship which can be effective only when it is based upon mutual confidence and trust.
Camara and See involved true searches. Those cases are distinguishable on their facts from this one. They do not require the result which the court has reached here. The court has extended the doctrine of those cases i'n order to reach this result, thereby striking a damaging blow to the successful administration of this important social welfare program.
I would deny the motion and dismiss the action.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660355. Public record. Not legal advice.