<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court will not review welfare searches</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Oh-Willeke</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13190</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Oh-Willeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:42:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13190</guid>
		<description>The headline was a bit of a tease.  The phase &quot;welfare search&quot; often is used as a term of art to refer to an entry to determine the well being of someone whom an officer has probable cause (or is it reasonable suspicion) to believe is unwell or in peril, often children, the disabled, or elderly people.
Obviously, a search of a welfare beneficiary is not quite the same thing, although it also raises interesting issues.  Could the U.S. condition receipt of itemized tax deductions, on a waiver of the right to a warrant and probably cause before bringing suit, for example?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The headline was a bit of a tease.  The phase &#8220;welfare search&#8221; often is used as a term of art to refer to an entry to determine the well being of someone whom an officer has probable cause (or is it reasonable suspicion) to believe is unwell or in peril, often children, the disabled, or elderly people.  </p>
<p>Obviously, a search of a welfare beneficiary is not quite the same thing, although it also raises interesting issues.  Could the U.S. condition receipt of itemized tax deductions, on a waiver of the right to a warrant and probably cause before bringing suit, for example?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Walsh</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13182</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13182</guid>
		<description>Do you mean &quot;six&quot; welfare recipients? Better look at the first line.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you mean &#8220;six&#8221; welfare recipients? Better look at the first line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Bunton</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13181</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Bunton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13181</guid>
		<description>Could you please post the order list.  Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you please post the order list.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Berlove</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13179</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Berlove</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13179</guid>
		<description>Sorry, when I wrote the above comment, only the first paragraph had appeared in my browser, so I didn&#039;t see that the second paragraph of the post explicitly answers my question :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, when I wrote the above comment, only the first paragraph had appeared in my browser, so I didn&#8217;t see that the second paragraph of the post explicitly answers my question :(</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Berlove</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13178</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Berlove</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-will-not-review-welfare-searches/#comment-13178</guid>
		<description>Did SCOTUS act on the D.C. residents&#039; cross-appeal challenging the D.C. Circuit&#039;s rule on standing to challenge gun laws?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did SCOTUS act on the D.C. residents&#8217; cross-appeal challenging the D.C. Circuit&#8217;s rule on standing to challenge gun laws?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

