The Poor, the Constitution, and When a Search Isn't One (Really)

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court refused to hear a San Diego County case involving the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches and welfare recipients. Those receiving government assistance could be denied benefits if they refused to submit to searches of their homes. The 9th Circuit had earlier ruled that the home visits didn't constitute a search since recipients were free to turn away investigators.
But how free are people who depend on government assistance to turn away investigators, particularly if they might be denied benefits? The 9th Circuit's decision, that "because the . . . visits serve an important governmental interest, are not criminal investigations, occur with advance notice and the applicant’s consent, and alleviate the serious administrative difficulties associated with welfare eligibility verification," they were not unconstitutional.
It should be noted that this was never a question of fraud. As the ACLU said in its initial July, 2000 suit, "in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, the home-search program applies only to those individuals whose applications raise no suspicion of fraud and contain no factual inconsistency."
The Court's decision said such visits were not searches because the purpose was not criminal investigation. Really? Then why does the county send "investigators from the District Attorney's Office's Public Assistance Fraud unit to search the homes of welfare applicants unannounced and without a warrant"?
Someone sent from the fraud unit sounds to me like someone who's going to conduct a search. And you can bet a much greater number of people would be up in arms if this case didn't involve the poor.