In Greene v. Camreta, (— F.3d —-, C.A.9 (Or.), December 10, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered the issue of whether an Oregon caseworker and a deputy sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment when they seized a suspected child abuse victim during the school day on campus and interrogated her for two hours in a private office without a warrant, probable cause, or consent from her parent. The Ninth Circuit held that although the deputy sheriff and caseworker did violate the constitutional rights of the girl and her mother, they were entitled to qualified immunity.
Facts
Nimrod Greene (“Nimrod”) was arrested for suspected sexual abuse of a seven-year old boy and the boy’s parents made allegations Nimrod may have also abused his own daughters. Acting on this allegation, Bob Camreta (“Camreta”), a caseworker with the Oregon Department of Human Services, visited the school of Nimrod’s daughter, S.G., to interview her. S.G.’s mother, Sarah Greene (“Sarah”), did not consent to an interview with her daughter. Deputy Sheriff James Alford (“Alford”) accompanied Camreta to S.G.’s school. A counselor at the school went to S.G.’s classroom and told her that someone was there to talk with her. Camreta took S.G. into a private office and interviewed her for two hours in the presence of Alford, who had a visible firearm. Alford did not ask S.G. any questions during the interview.
Camreta claims S.G. told him during the interview that her father touches her private parts, the touching started when she was three, the last incident occurred the previous week, and her mother knew about the touching. When S.G. recounted the interview at a later date, she stated she told Camreta that she did not think that her dad had touched her in a bad way, but after Camreta asked her the same questions for over an hour trying to get her to change her answers, she finally just started saying yes to whatever he said. S.G. also claimed she was scared while she was being questioned.
Sarah filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and S.G., alleging in part the in-school seizure of S.G by Camreta and Alford without a warrant, parental consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the case including Camreta, Alford, the school district, and the school counselor.
Decision
The Ninth Circuit found Camreta and Alford violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures when they conducted the in-school interview. Camreta and Alford, however, cannot be liable for damages for constitutional violations arising from the investigation because they have qualified immunity. The primary question before the Ninth Circuit was “whether an in-school seizure and interrogation of a suspected child abuse victim is always permissible under the Fourth Amendment without probable cause and a warrant or the equivalent of a warrant.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees an individual the right “to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures” by government officials. The two-hour interview of S.G. was a seizure and the court was left to determine whether that seizure was unreasonable.
A special standard is applied to searches of students by school officials. The court found precedent involving searches of students by school officials was not applicable because S.G. was seized and interrogated by a social worker and a deputy sheriff, neither of whom are school officials. In New Jersey v. T.L.O, (1985), 469 U.S. 325, the United States Supreme Court recognized a “special need” in school search cases because teachers and administrators need to be able to maintain discipline in the classroom and on school grounds. This “special need” is absent here because S.G. was not suspected of having violated any school rule and there was no need for an immediate seizure of S.G. to maintain discipline.
The United States Supreme Court “has lowered traditional Fourth Amendment protections ‘when special needs, beyond the normal need of law enforcement make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable.’” However, none of the Supreme Court’s cases involving special needs have “upheld the collection of evidence for criminal law enforcement purposes.” Instead, the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements have been waived where there is an “explicit assumption that the evidence obtained in the search is not intended to be used for law enforcement purposes.” The court found that in this case, “the presence of law enforcement objectives is evident” because at the time of the seizure of S.G., the police were conducting an active investigation of child abuse against Nimrod and a police officer was present at the interview.
The Ninth Circuit held that the “general law of search warrants applies to child abuse investigations.” “Once the police have initiated a criminal investigation into alleged abuse in the home, responsible officials must provide procedural protections appropriate to the criminal context.” The Ninth Circuit found S.G. was not seized for some “special need, beyond the normal need for law enforcement” and “the decision to seize and interrogate S.G. in the absence of a warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was unconstitutional.”
Where government officials have violated the constitutional rights of a citizen, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” The Ninth Circuit found Camreta and Alford are entitled to qualified immunity because precedent “did not clearly establish that the in-school seizure of a student suspected of being the victim of child sex abuse can be subject to traditional Fourth Amendment protections, and because . . .[Camreta’s and Alford’s] actions were not so clearly invalid as to strip them of immunity.”
What This Means To You
In this case, the claims against the school district were dismissed and not appealed so the Ninth Circuit did not address whether the school district could potentially face liability in such circumstances. Further, although this case involved Oregon’s mandated reporter law, the law is similar to California Penal Code section 11174.3 and because the Ninth Circuit encompasses both California and Oregon, it is likely the Court would rule similarly on California’s statute. Districts should proceed with caution when allowing police officers to interrogate students on campus absent a warrant, court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent. We recommend that in the absence of the above circumstances, districts consult with legal counsel before allowing questioning to occur.
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.
Diana D. Halpenny | 916.321.4500