UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Ruling That Child Protective Services Worker Must Obtain Warrant Before Interviewing Suspected Child Abuse Victim At School

In Camreta v. Greene, (— S.Ct. —-, U.S., May 26, 2011), the United States Supreme Court initially considered whether a state child protective services worker could challenge a lower court ruling that his actions in interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school without a warrant or parental consent violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures. But, in a procedural ruling, the Supreme Court held that although it may “generally review a lower court’s ruling at the behest of a government official granted immunity,” it could not review this case because “the case has become moot.” The Court then vacated the portion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that found the child protective services worker violated the Fourth Amendment when he conducted the warrantless in-school interview.

Facts

In February 2003, Nimrod Greene (“Nimrod”) was arrested for suspected sexual abuse of an unrelated young boy. The boy’s parents made allegations Nimrod may have also abused his own daughter, S.G. The police reported the allegations to the Oregon Department of Human Services, which assigned a caseworker to assess S.G.’s safety. Several days after he received the report, the caseworker visited S.G.’s school along with a deputy sheriff to interview S.G. The pair did not have an arrest warrant or the consent of S.G.’s mother to conduct the interview.

The Student’s parent eventually sued on S.G.’s behalf for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures during the in-school interview. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the caseworker and deputy sheriff. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that although the interview violated S.G.’s constitutional rights because she was interrogated without “a warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent,” The officials were entitled to qualified immunity because there was “no clearly established law [that] warned them of the illegality of their conduct.”

Supreme Court Decision

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it could review the Ninth Circuit decision that caseworker and deputy sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded there was no live controversy to review and the case is moot. Thus, the Court vacated the portion of the court of appeals’ decision that addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the in-school interview.

What This Means To You

In vacating the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court left to another day what federal requirements, if any, must be fulfilled prior to allowing a student to be interviewed on a school campus by child protective services or law enforcement regarding child abuse allegations. Should this situation arise where these entities are seeking to interview students on district campuses, we would recommend consulting with legal counsel immediately.

Update

This Legal Alert updates our previous Legal Alert entitled, “Caseworker And Deputy Sheriff Violated Fourth Amendment When They Conducted A Warrantless In-School Interview Of Suspected Child Abuse Victim,” February 8, 2010.

Questions

If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.

Christian M. Keiner or Jeffrey L. Massey | 916.321.4500

Chelsea R. Olson | 805.786.4302