Resources

Child abuse interview of student by DHS caseworker and sheriff violated 4th amendment

January 04, 2010

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a police officer cannot interview a student at school regarding child abuse without a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances or parental consent. Similarly, the court suggested that a DHS caseworker must have a court order prior to interviewing a student at school, unless the parent consents to the interview.

A caseworker was notified of allegations regarding the sexual abuse of two children by their father. He was assigned to assess the girls’ safety. Upon learning that the father was being released from custody, he became concerned for the girls’ safety. He interviewed one of the girls at her elementary school, and a law enforcement officer was present for the interview. The mother sued the caseworker and the law enforcement officer alleging a Fourth Amendment violation because the in-school interview was conducted without a warrant, parental consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances. The mother’s claims against the school district and school counselor were dismissed.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the seizure was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The interview constituted a seizure, which must be reasonable to be lawful. Reasonableness depends on the evidence supporting the government’s desire to seize someone. Generally, the government must show enough evidence to create probable cause. The court held that a caseworker’s belief that the girls’ safety was in danger did not constitute probable cause.

The school-setting exception to the probable cause requirement does not apply when a caseworker and police officer seize a student in the school setting. In the school setting, if a teacher or school official seizes a student to maintain discipline on school grounds, then the justification for the seizure can be something less than probable cause. The lower standard did not apply in this case because the students were not seized by teachers or school officials to maintain discipline on school grounds.

Greene v Camreta, (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2009) 2009 WL 4674129.

More >>