Drug Policy

Boise Police Seize Children of Marijuana Activists


Moms for Marijuana

Three marijuana advocates in Boise, Idaho, had their children taken by Child Protective Services this week after police found marijuana in one of the family's homes. 

According to an item posted today by one of the parents on Compassionate Idaho, a medical marijuana site, Lindsey Rinehart and her husband Josh Rinehart went hiking with friend Sarah Caldwell earlier this week. When they came back, their kids had been taken. 

Officers with the Boise Police Department had arrived at the house while they were gone to conduct a "Well Child Check," allegedly at the behest of a school administrator. (I've requested information from the BPD, and will update this post when I hear back.) "The BPD intimidated our babysitter/friend and gained access to our home," Lindsey Rinehart wrote. "Upon entering, and seeing that the house was Fine, the kids are Fine, they decided to go to my room." That's where police found the marijuana that Rinehart uses to treat her MS, and decided to call Child Protective Services.

CPS took 10-year-old Laustin Rinehart and 5-year-old Elijah Rinehart, as well as Sarah Caldwell's children, 11-year-old Thomas Andrew and 6-year-old Kyle. Their parents are now desperate to get them back. All three are well-known marijuana activists: Lindsey works for Compassionate Idaho, Josh is the director of Idaho NORML, and Sarah Caldwell works for Moms for Marijuana International. 

"The crying doesn't stop," Rinehart wrote on her blog. "The heartache doesn't stop. You look around your house and their toys are there, and their/our dogs are here sad with us, their clothes are here. Fuck, CPS didn't even take their Tooth Brushes."

Marijuana activists are rallying behind the families. According to a donation page set up to help cover their legal fees, "there is a dependency hearing for the children that is pending, and possible criminal charges relating to Marijuana might arise in the future."

I've also reached out to Moms for Marijuana International founder Serra Frank, and will update when I hear back. 

Update: Russ Belville, a marijuana activist and radio host, interviewed Lindsey Rinehart and Serra Frank on his show. It's heartbreaking: 

NEXT: Officer Charged With Groping, Threatening Woman Who Sought His Help

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No one likes to see that. Thankfully addicts who have children wave their constitutional rights and the police were able to rescue the babies just in time before anyone got mellow.

    1. Maybe their children will finally get to live with some upstanding alcoholic foster parents. Justice is a dish best served ironic.

    2. T-minus 5-15 years before the government starts taking people’s kids away for not enforcing leftist philosophical orthodoxy, and the Christian Temperance socons are gonna be all ‘WUT TEH FUCK!?’

      Who could have seen it coming? Gots to protect the children from the evil drugz.

      1. Barack Obama is an admitted drug user. Perhaps Natasha and Malia should be taken into protective custody.

        1. Who would want them?

          1. Who would want them?

            Dude, this monocle is not going to polish itself.

          2. R. Kelly.

            1. Can Sasha and Malia fit in the closet with him?

              1. If Tom Cruise can, they should be able to.

    3. The local paper is The Idaho Statesman. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am going to hound the editors if I don’t see something in writing about this.

    4. Exactly how did the “wave their ‘constitutional’ rights”?

      Aside from the fact that the Constitution does not grant rights, rights cannot be waived.

      1. From they flag pole.

  2. Now I see what those commercials mean about how smoking pot can ruin your life.

    1. The state will make it its business to see that smoking pot ruins your life.

      1. You how we made an example of the Hakkens, don’t you?
        You don’t want to end up like them do you?


    2. You’re ignorant. learn about the fucking cause before you say one single thing about this. for one marijuana doesn’t ruin your life if you can smoke pot and not handle life youre just STUPID


    1. as long as the will of the majority is followed.

  4. Abducting prepubescent children from their homes and detaining them unlawfully at the discretion of slavemaking bureaucrats?

    Sounds like grounds to shoot the fuckers dead in their tracks as they make their way into your house.

    1. only in a just world.

    2. “Sounds like grounds to shoot the fuckers dead in their tracks as they make their way into your house.”

      I wouldn’t hold it against them if they did, except, unfortunately, that would almost certainly ruin their lives and those of their children.

  5. In just world the school administrator who initiated this clusterfuck would be taken out and shot, along with the cop who notified CPS, along with the CPS inspector who made the call to take the kids. These people are animals.

    1. I swear to God, I don’t think I could live with myself if I were to become an accomplice in bringing children of my own into this God-awful world. Fuck this shit.

    2. That school administrator was sooooo underpaid and overworked!

    3. Murder is going a bit overboard. Tar and feathers people — the old ways are best.

      1. As long as there’s still a chance that they could die of infection from their tar and feathering wounds.

  6. Are you trying to make me kill myself Riggs?

    1. I haven’t been this livid in weeks. Motherfucking motherfuckers. I hope they all burn in Hell’s grizzliest pit.

      1. I was more livid at what happened to the Hakkens. But mostly I just have this depressing feeling of helplessness and oppression.

        I can’t believe I live in a country that does this to people.

        1. and this is but one instance that actually gets some media attention.

          1. If by “media attention” you mean a couple of blog postings.

            1. Yeah, I’m personally not gonna hold my breath for some kind of hard hitting 60 Minutes expose on this case.

              1. Give them a call. You never know.

        2. Hazel, I think this is the more egregious case since the Hakkens were openly carrying illegal drugs (which shouldn’t be illegal, but is) and these people had their home invaded for what seems a lame and transparent pretext to punish them for their speech.

          1. They were in a hotel room, so I don’t know how that is “openly carrying”. Also the parents here were “out” about their marijuana use, so they knew they were taking a risk. The Hakkens weren’t activists, and they also got punished, apparently with permanet loss of custody, for attempting to retrieve their children by force.

            In the case however, it looks like the state is using the THREAT of loss of custody in order to silence the parent’s speech, which is in some way worse. So they both are bad. Ultimately these parents aren’t in prison, yet, and and havn’t lost their parental rights.

    2. “Are you trying to make me kill myself Riggs?”

      Best imagined being said by a tired Danny Glover facepalming.

  7. So someone who does not own the home or is not renting the home is authorized to allow agents of the state to enter and search the premises without permission of the home owner/renter or without showing a warrant?

    Since the owners/renters never consented to the search, shouldn’t anything found be inadmissible in court? Or is this allowed in the Constitution because of the clauses written in invisible ink that only government guys with special glasses can read? Is this a public safety/child safety exception? Or is this filed under FYTW?

    1. They have the kids. The legalities of it no longer matter. The parents are now guilty until proven innocent.

      1. The laws are sufficiently vague that legalities don’t matter

      2. After all, what’s really important is “what’s best for the child”.

        Determination of what’s “best” is at the discretion of the Court.

    2. It’s allowed under the “Why do you hate children, you monster” clause of the constitution.

      1. Yes, I think “what about the children?” is somewhere in the preamble. I forget.

        Of course, deciding what’s best for the children entails entirely not giving a shit about the parents. Parents are just sperm and egg donors who have generously provided society with offspring. Easily disposed of as soon as the gestational period is over.

        1. As Melissa Harris-Perry explained to us.

        2. Something about “for ourselves and our posterity”. Now what exactly were we trying to preserve? I forget.

        3. It’s worse than that. “What’s best for the children” isn’t involved in the thought process of anyone involved from the State, be it the cops, CPS, the “school administrator” etc. In fact, harming the children, whilst claiming to help them is the real agenda. To be clear, I am saying these are not misguided but well-meaning people, they’re just plain evil. They like to use the power of the State to cause misery, suffering and death.

    3. Family Court does not abide by the rules of the criminal justice system.

      This is not a criminal case. The parents are not being tried for a crime, so there is no presumption of innocence or miranda rights. The constitution doesn’t paply.

      The court makes it’s decisions solely on the basis of “what is best for the child”.

      1. Um, the constitution still applies (theoretically)

        1. Really? What part of it applies?
          Due process? Habeas corpus?

          The parents aren’t being tried for a crime, so I don’t see how you get to rules on the admissibility of evidence.

          Maybe “cruel and unusual punishment” ought to apply, but I doubt anyone has argued up to SCOTUS yet that having your kids taken away for MJ possassion consitutions cruel or unusual punishment. (Maybe that’s an idea.)

          1. I am not saying for a second that this SHOULD be adjudicated as constitutional. It’s an abomination. Assuming all they found was MJ, that is nowhere NEAR enough evidence of neglecta/abuse

            Im just saying Family Court as much as they try doesn’t get a pass on constitutional protection (although god knows some family court judges think they are god and the constitution doesn’t apply them.__)

            1. You think family court would rule out evidence of child porn in the house because it was obtained without a search warrant? Fat fucking chance.

            2. The Constitution doesn’t apply to family court and their enforcers. Period.

              They trespassed on private property, illegally gathered evidence, and unlawfully abducted and detained the minor dependents of American citizens.

              The Constitution does not apply. They’re literally extrajudicial entities with extralegal enforcement.

              May whoever presides over the underworld torture them for all eternity for what they’ve done to this country.

              1. You can’t say it was “unlawful”. After all, the law does authorize them to seize people’s children with virtually not oversight or protections for the parents rights.

                1. The only law I recognize here is the supreme law of nature of the Constitution. All following laws that are counter to the aforementioned are, in fact, unlawful.

                  How the fuck do the people who proposed these laws in the first place live with themselves? I’m wondering what it must be like to live without a moral compass, and to literally make slaves of your neighbors and compatriots.

                  1. Are you kidding? These people think of themselves as morally SUPERIOR!

                    Suppose, just suppose, that a group of fundamentalists got government positions and decided to take kids from their parents because belief in God wasn’t taught in the home? Why is this different?

                    1. Why do you think compulsory public education was enacted?

                  2. Quite soundly, I’m sure.

                    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

                    ?C. S. Lewis

            3. And in a moral world, their parents would be applauded for using deadly force to prevent their children’s impermissible detainment by armed thugs.

          2. takings clause?

      2. The very concept of the family court is an unholy, abomination. How anybody thinks they’re justifiable is beyond me.

        1. It also contains too many “rebuttable presumptions” and not enough evidence based judgement.

          Most of the time you aren’t even given the chance to rebutt before penalties are applied.

          1. I really think some of these cases should be challenged on “cruel and unusual punishment” grounds.

            It appears as if the state is sometimes taking kids not because there is a genuine threat to the child’s health, but as some sort of twisted punishment for illegal activity.

            I.e. there’s no evidence that MJ harms kids, but because there is “illegal activity” in the household that in itself is said to be reason to remove the child. Which makes seizing people’s children a punishment for the illegal activity. Ergo, curel and unusal punishment.

    4. Matrix, the doctrine is “apparent authority”. Baby sitters can AND DO have the authority to give LEO’s (or CPS) permission to enter. This case is a complete travesty, but *if* the babysitter gave willing and informed consent, that aspect will hold up

      1. Permission to enter their bedroom?

        1. If it was legal for them to be admitted to the house and search, I’m not sure what legal principle limits their search to everyplace but the bedroom. I don’t like it any more than you do, but I can’t think of a reason that in particular would be prohibited upon their entry.

          1. Permission to enter the house translates into permission to enter your wife’s vagina who might be standing in the house? Permission to enter house isn’t limitless and I would argue that a guest won’t have the right consent to a search of an area in the house that is off limits to the guest.

            1. Jesus, in my blind rage, I butchered that comment.

              1. Right, it sounds like your wife’s vagina is standing in the house.

                1. …it sounds like your wife’s vagina is standing in the house.

                  Well it is….sort of.

                  1. …it sounds like your wife’s vagina is standing in the house.

                    Well it is….sort of.


              2. Butchered, or not, Cap, it got my attention.

                +1 wah-GEE-na

          2. There are a couple of principles that might apply.

            If it was an administrative search, the scope of the search is limited by the particular administrative requirement. This is why (for example) you might have to let a municipal code inspector examine the addition you just built on your home, but not the basement or garage.

            If it’s a non-administrative search, the person who gives authority for the government agent to enter and search has every right to limit the scope of that permission. You can tell a cop, “Sure, you can look around the garage if you want, but not the rest of the house.” I’m not sure why you’d ever do that — seems easier to me to just tell the pigs to go pound sand — but you can, and if their search goes beyond your authorization, anything they find is subject to the exclusionary rule.

            The wrinkle is the plain view doctrine: anything police can see/sense where they are legally authorized to be is admissible. So you might have one of these assholes testilying to the effect of, “Well, your honor, the babysitter told me I could look around but not go into the bedrooms, but the bedroom door was open and I happened to catch sight of a dime bag sitting in plain view on the nightstand.” This is why I think you’d have to be nuts to allow cops into your home without a warrant under any circumstances.

            1. What prevents a cop from saying that he saw it sitting plainly out when, in fact, it was stashed away in a drawer?

              Your word against his. Besides, do you want to admit, openly, that you had contraband?

              1. That was kind of my point: once you let them in the door, there’s absolutely nothing stopping them from lying out their asses about what was in “plain view”.

    5. So someone who does not own the home or is not renting the home is authorized to allow agents of the state to enter and search the premises…


      There was a case where I live where a random partygoer consented to police entry (after much badgering), and it stood up in court.

      IANAL, Idaho law may be different, YMMV.

      And as pointed out by Hugh, they have the kids, so the parents are well and truly screwed.

    6. “Since the owners/renters never consented to the search, shouldn’t anything found be inadmissible in court? “

      Only on potential criminal charges, for losing your parental rights none of that matters, you have no rights and are totally at the mercy of the personal opinions of an individual social worker and a family court judge. I’m not even sure you can appeal their decisions in higher courts.

      1. I think you could appeal it on “cruel and unusual punishment” grounds.

        It might be a tough case. But there ought to be some protections against the possibility of kids being seized to indirectly punish people for their speech, or religion, or whatnot.

        1. Nope, because officially the kids were not taken to punish the parents but rather to protect them from whatever abuse/neglect the CPS officer claims occurred.

          That is a huge part of why Family Court is so screwed up and offers so little protections for the parents, it is not considered a punishment for the parents but rather a determination of what is best for the children. True, they are supposed to err on the side of keeping families together but since it is not a criminal proceeding there really isn’t anything you can do to force them to do that

          1. So all CPS has to do is CLAIM that the kids were taken to protect them from some sort of abuse? Who verifies these claims, what sort of legal scrutiny are they subject to?

            Is “drug use in the home” sufficient cause to claim the children were being abused/neglected? Shouldn’t they have to prove that marijuana use is actually abusive to children?

    7. The other FYTW:

      That’s where police found the marijuana that Rinehart uses to treat her MS

      No symptom relief for you. You must suffer. It’s for the children.

    8. Sure, the MJ charge will be dismissed – but not the taking the kids away. That’s family court and the rules are different (mainly the rules are whatever the fuck the judge wants them to be). No fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine there.

  8. Let me make a prediction. Nobody in the mainstream media will pick up this story. Nobody will give a SHIT. These people will be IGNORED. If they try to do anything to get their kids bakc they will end up in prison like the Hakkens.

    I fucking hate CPS and it’s booklicking servants in the media.

    1. This case should be FRONT PAGE FUCKING NEWS. It should be repeated on Fox, CNN, etc. every half hour. It’s an outrage and its the perfect example of a drug war that is completely out of contol

      1. Don’t hold your breath.

      2. It won’t be because it violates the narritave of both sides.

        Fox won’t run with it, sure it is an example of government overreach encroaching on the liberties of ordinary every day Americans, problem is ZOMGDRUGSARETEHEVIL!!!111!11, and they can’t come off as being soft on drugs.

        The rest of the mainstream media won’t touch it, I mean sure it’s just pot and she even has a legitimate medical reason for needing it but you cannot seriously question the righteousness of CPS, Do you want children to be abused?

        1. Right. And they don’t want to sidetrack the narrative about how centrist and “balanced” Obama’s policies are by diving into a debate about pot-smoking that will just make everyone imagine him smoking a joint and listening to Bob Marley. He’s the white man’s black person. Don’t fuck up that image by introducing a spliff.

          1. I think that misses the point. Everyone knows Obama smoked lots of pot, and many his supporters think he’s cool for it. What do you mean he’s continuing, and in some cases ramping up the harsh drug policies of his predecesors? It’s all the Rethuglican’s fault because he’d be attacked as “soft on crime” if he did what he really wanted. Oh, and anyways, he’s smarter than everyone else, so I’m sure he has good reasons for his policies, maybe we’re just not capable of grasping them. Or something.

            1. It’s not really that big in the popular consciousness that Obama was a big pothead. Bringing up the WoD reminds everyone of that. That will fuck up Obama’s refined image.

    2. Each time I read a story of this sort, the first thing that pops into my mind is the image of Chekists mass-storming apartment blocks and condemning people to gulags and reeducation camps.

      This is pure evil.

    3. They won’t simply be ignored. They be ridiculed as anti-government pot smoking losers.

      Fuckity fuck fuck.

    4. Nobody in the mainstream media will pick up this story

      Or if it does it will be “anti-government pro-pot activists…” Did anyone ever explain just what the Hakken’s “anti-government” views were? Other than being pro-pot and maybe attending a couple of pot rallies? And of course a (completely justifiable) contempt for CPS?

      1. Hakkens does seem to believe in some of the Alex Jones conspiracy theories, that said from the handful of posts of his I’ve seen online I’d say his views were nowhere near the lunatic fringe nor did they appear to be in any way dangerous

  9. “The BPD intimidated our babysitter/friend and gained access to our home,” Rinehart wrote. “Upon entering, and seeing that the house was Fine, the kids are Fine, they decided to go to my room.”

    I’m guessing they did all of this without a search warrant. What are they allowed/ not allowed to do on a “well child check” or whatever the fuck it’s called?


    1. CPS doesn’t have to get a search warrent to do a “well child check”, because it’s not a criminal investigation.

      1. CPS (and the cops) still need either consent to enter OR exigency. There is some case law that if they have reasonable suspicion of imminent harm, they can force entry, however there is no evidence of that here.

        What you have is an alleged consent to enter case

        1. The police officers who partook in this hellish crime, I presume, sleep comfortably at night, and that they have yet to attempt guilt-driven suicide over their misdeeds indicates to me that they’re depraved, downright evil men.

          God help you if you ever attempt to defend these sons of bitches.

          1. Dunphy is on record defending a bunch of murderers, so I think he’s already pretty damned.

    2. In brief, stuff like this gets measured under the “community caretaking ” doctrine. It’s a GROSS injustice of course, but that’s how they will “justify” it

  10. Awful. You would hope with states starting to legalize mj, that judicial notice could/should be taken that evidence of MJ use is not evidence of child abuse/neglect, any more than evidence of alcohol consumption. Heck, on the whole, I’d say MJ use is “safer”.

    Sounds to me like this political payback for their activism vis a vis NORML etc.

    I’d be curious to know HOW much MJ they found. Iow, did they find amounts suggestive that they were engaged in trafficking, recognizing that drug trafficking is a dangerous job (home invasion robberies, etc.).

    THIS is the kind of thing that needs to be publicized. Will major media pick it up? It should be a national story. It’s a perfect example of the lunacy of the war on MJ.

    1. Will major media pick it up? It should be a national story.

      It won’t be.
      Look at what the media did with the Hakkens. They picked it up. And then in perfect lock step, portrayed the Hakkens as crazed drug-addled gun nuts on a suicide mission. They didn’t even stop to question the Lousiana police’s story. it was more fun to do a “save the children” story.

      1. I was more captivated by the man-boobs

    2. It’s a perfect example of the lunacy of the war on MJ.

      Which is pretty much precisely why it won’t be picked up by anyone.

  11. My sister in Carey, ID has a girl in HS that’s going through the usual HS girl stuff and a son in college with two more years of tuition payments. Maybe if she goes to some rallies and puts a dime bag in the freezer she can have all this taken care of.

    1. Don’t put it in the freezer! Fridge, ok – freezing it seriously degrades it. Or so I’ve heard. On the internet. Or something.

  12. Jeez, and she took it for her MS. That’s just awful! Fucking monsters and what cowards to perform the “well child check” while the parents were out and are unable to defend themselves. So much in this story to be pissed about.

    What this has taught me is to make sure my future babysitters are radical libertarian activists and not a pushover.

    1. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the cops watched the house and waited until they knew the owners were away, and they’d be dealing with a more-easily-intimidated babysitter.

  13. Did I read that right? They took the children of a woman who didn’t even live in the house? As a parent, CPS snatching my kids is seriously one of my greatest fears.

    1. I will stone cold kill a motherfucker.

      1. I have seriously thought through what I would do in these circumstances…and it never ends well.

      2. Miz Ho-dez, I must inform you that if you do not consent I will leave and return with a warrant. Officer Smith here will wait until my return.

        1. He’s welcome to do all the waiting he wants from the curb.


  15. Yeah, I wasn’t feeling angry enough today. Thanks, Reason.

  16. I don’t even have children but reading this shit makes me want to inflict some serious pain on these scumbags.

  17. OK, these people should have known they’d be subject to this sort of harrassment and should have had the forethought to train their babysitter to deal with this by just saying no. And having a lawyer whose number was posted by the front door. Bad judgement all around.

    Having said that, the various agents of the state involved in this are the ones ultimately responsible and they are beneath contempt.

    And this is how it’s going to play out from now on, now that the WOWOD is getting serious and the entrenched side is losing – they are going to try to scare parents from speaking out about this for fear of losing their children.

    Dammit, Riggs, that’s a full-Balko grade nut-punch.

    1. Seriously? Victim blaming? Here?

      1. I read that as “they should have thought ahead”, not as “they should have thought ahead so they deserved it”.

      2. Victim-blaming is just a magic phrase to preemptively absolve anyone who suffers a bad outcome from any possible culpability in that outcome.

        Personal responsibility is big here, and with good reason.

        No, they didn’t deserve it, but I tried to make that clear having assigned ultimate responsibility to the state actors.

    2. It’s a sad state of affairs when you feel the need to remind your babysitter not to let cops in lest they steal your children.

      1. Yes, it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to take precautions against the threat that the government will take your kids away because you dare to speak out against their policies.

  18. Until the time comes where “We the People” are willing to take up ARMS against this sort of tyranny, our stupid little comments about the legality and Constitutionality is vacuous crap. I would like to start a Bitcoin funded mercenary army that would take “alternative” measures to address this sort of problem. If you agree, let me know. This shit should be stopped.

    1. The problem is that you need to get people who aren’t having their kids taken to take up arms too. This sort of thing happens rarely enough (loads of people get caught with drugs adn don’t have their kids stolen) that any blowback is going to be isolated enough that whoever fights back can easily be portrayed as a dangerous crazy person. Unless it gets a whole lot worse that even now, I don’t see people fighting back.

    2. Why does your email have “.atf” at the end?

    3. Sadly, anyone who is a parent will be too afraid to participate.

      This is what oppression looks like.

      1. I’m pretty sure the sanction for participating in the assassination of public officials is the same whether you’re a parent or not. I can see why parents might not want to take less drastic action like speaking out, but all that means is that breaking point will come without a lot of a warning, and thus probably with a lot more violence.

  19. Fwiw, a key aspect of case law in cases like this is SCOPE OF AUTHORITY. Iow, assume the drugs were found in the master bedroom. The question is – did the homeowners expect/allow the babysitter to access their master bedroom (did it have baby food in it she needed to get or something like that).

    Scope of authority can be limited. The best way is to lock the room. That’s strong prima facie evidence that the babysitter has no authoritah (assuming she wasn’t given the key) to BE in that room. If she has no authority/permission to be there, then she can’t give permission to search there.

    WA is more restrictive than the federal standard (with ferrier and all parties present rule), but if you don’t want a babysitter or housesitter or whatever to have permission to give access to certain parts of the house, make that clear to her AND of course using a lock is a million times better evidence. No key, no apparent authority.

    In houses where you have multiple dweilling units, a tenant can generally give permission to search common area (in WA all parties present must give permission), but not private dwelling units.

  20. Is nothing in Australia sacred?

    Chlamydia may lead to the extinction of the Koala.

    1. Are the koalas the drug-addict bears, or the too-lazy-to-fuck bears?

      1. I don’t think you get chlamydia from shooting up meth, so this one’s a no-brainer.

      2. Marsupial, not bear


  21. Officers with the Boise Police Department arrived at the house to conduct a “Well Child Check,” allegedly at the behest of a school administrator. (I’ve requested information from the BPD, and will update this post when I hear back.) “The BPD intimidated our babysitter/friend and gained access to our home,” Rinehart wrote. “Upon entering, and seeing that the house was Fine, the kids are Fine, they decided to go to my room.” That’s where police found the marijuana that Rinehart uses to treat her MS, and decided to call Child Protective Services.

    So this “well child check”/warrantless search/kidnapping just happened to take place while the parents were away and the children of a different marijuana activist were conveniently at the residence to be scooped up in this CPS’ net?

    Smells like bullshit to me. A planned and executed kidnapping by the state. So now the kids will be held hostage until the parents and the state come to an “understanding.”

  22. Good grief — CPS is kidnapping children based on what their parents smoke? Can’t CPS be charged with kidnapping, child endangerment, etc. and sued for wrongful arrest and infliction of emotional distress?

    Marijuana activists are organizing to protest this? That’s great, but all parents should be organizing to protest this.

    What’s next, kidnapping kids because the parents smoke tobacco? MJ is legal now in two neighboring states to Idaho. Are all those parents really endangering their children?

    1. What’s next, kidnapping kids because the parents smoke tobacco?

      That’s got to be less than 10 years away.

      IIRC, it’s already considered endangerment to smoke in the house with them in it, due to second hand smoke, etc.


  23. Idaho, go stick more potatoes up your ass.

  24. What is a “Well child check”? If the children are well what presumed authority does the law have to check on them?

    1. The law has no authority. It has power.

  25. I’ve spent the last hour on Facebook spreading this story around, messaging the admins of popular community pages and such. I’ve also emailed it to my local news stations and even sent it to The Drudge Report, even though most of the time I detest Drudge, I just can’t sit idly by while this happens, America’s sure fucked up, but maybe we can win this small battle for personal liberties, and for those poor parents if we all work together to spread this around.

    1. I just got a message back from the hugely popular and highly influential comedy page “Hipster C’thulu” and he said he’s going to share it.


  26. This is a very personal issue for me. I don’t have kids, but I do live in Boise,and I did just smoke a bowel before reading this article. If I weren’t so high, I’d probably be pretty mad right now at this abuse of power.

  27. This story literally makes my blood boil and seethe with rage. If this happened to me, I’d go out for blood.

  28. It’s interesting to note that the authorities just happened to show up when the people who had actual authority to consent to a search were out of the house but people who had only ostensible authority to do so were in the home. What a strange coincidence.

  29. I already cringe at the concept of “wellness” but the term “well child” will henceforth make my blood run hot.

  30. Something that hasn’t been brought up in all the discussion is that it is highly unlikely that CPS would take a child from its parents for a first time misdemeanor drug bust out on the street. I mean, in a case where they simply got stopped in a car with MJ out, and were arrested for it (no Well Child check/CPS), they’d be out in 20 minutes, and CPS wouldn’t have bothered with it.

  31. This is a fucking outrage.

  32. The first thing that I would do is step away from NORML (the National Organization for Rich Marijuana Lawyers). The reason is, that they aren’t going to help you. After all of these years of supporting NORML, do you think they are going to do anything for you?
    Align yourself with real grassroots activists, start working on your defense, separate for the NORML lobby, and pray hard!

    Your families are in our prayers!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.