Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Smith v. L.A. County Bd. of Supervisors
104 Cal. App. 4th 1104 (2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55069
Description
Pilot Project Requiring Home Visits as Condition of Eligibility for Public Benefits Does Not Violate State or Federal Law
Abstract
The California Court of Appeal held that a pilot project subjecting
public aid applicants in Los Angeles to home visits as a condition
of eligibility did not violate state or federal law. Petitioners,
applicants for and recipients of public aid, filed a petition for
writ of mandate challenging the program. Petitioners claimed that
defendant county had created an unauthorized condition of
eligibility and that the pilot project violated state requirements
for early fraud prevention and detection and state and federal
constitutional requirements for welfare-related home searches or
administrative searches. The trial court found that home visits
completed, on average, in 30-45 minutes, were an effective means to
discover welfare ineligibility quickly and did not violate state
law. Petitioners appealed. Affirming, the appellate court held that
the home visit pilot project was a method of ensuring eligibility
that did not conflict with statute or regulation. The appellate
court rejected the argument that the program was an early fraud
prevention and detection program in violation of state law. That
eligibility workers were to be alert to untruthful statements in an
application for benefits did not make the home visit an
investigation. Also rejecting petitioners’ claims under the
Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution, the appellate
court found the government interest in reducing welfare fraud to be
great and the intrusion on applicants’ personal privacy to be
minimal.
