## I n t he



# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ircu it

____________ N o. 07

- 1756 M ICHAEL C ., C HE R I T A C ., K IMB ERLY W ., E T AL ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. D ANA G R ES BA CH , D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ App eal fro m the United S t ates Di stric tC ou rt fo r the E astern Di stric tof Wi sc ons in. No . 05 C650— Lyn n A delm an , Judg e.

____________ A RGUED D ECE MBE R 3, 2 0 0 7 —D ECI DE D M AY 19, 2008

____________
Befo re B AUER, E V AN S an d S YKES , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i t Judg e . The p ar en t s a nd st epparent s o f m i no r c hi l dr en I an a nd Al ex i s ( “P l ai nt i f fs”) s ue d Da na Gresba ch, a casew or ke r w i th the Bureau o fM i l w aukee Chi l d W el f ar e ( “Bur ea u” ) , unde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, a l l eg i ng in p ar t th at G re sb ac h vio late d the c h i l d re n ’s F ou rth A m endm entr i ght s w hen she c onducte d und er - the- cl othes ex am inati ons of each child’s bod y d u r in g sep arate i ntervi ew s at thei r pri vat e schoo l , as part of a c h ild ab u se i nvest i gat i on i n Feb ruar y of 2 004. Gres bach m ove d fo r su m m ar y j udg m en to n q ua l i fi ed i m m un ity g r o unds

. The2 N o. 07

- 1756

Se c t i on 48

. 98 1( 3) ( c ) 1 p ro v i des , i n pe rt i ne ntpar t , t hat“[ t ] he 1 age nc y m ay c ont ac t , o bs er ve or i nt er vi ew t he c hi l d atan y l oc at i on wit houtpe rm i s s i on f ro m t he c hi l d’ s par en t , guard ian , (co n tin u ed ...) d ist rictcou rtde nied th e m oti on, holdin g tha t G resba ch ’s conductvi ol at ed the chi l dren’ s r i ght s t o be fre e fro m u n re as on ab le s ea rc h es , an d tho se r igh ts w er e c lea rly est abl i shed atthe t i m e o fthe se ar ches. Gre sbach appeal s, ar gui ng that she i s ent i t l ed t o quali fi ed i m m unity becaus e he r a ct i o ns wer e o bj ec t i ve l y r ea so na bl e unde r the F o ur th A m en dm en ta f t er s he r ec ei ve d g en er alc o ns en t fro m the schoo l ’ s pri nci pal t o i nvest i gat e an al l ega tion o f ch il d a bus e pur su an tt o W i s. S t at
. § 4 8. 98 1( 3) ( c) 1, a nd no ca se c l ea r l y es t ab l i sh ed tha the r i nv es t i g at i o n v i o l at ed the c h i l d r e n ’ s F o u r th A me n d me n tr i g h t s . We a f fi r m.

I. I n D oe v. H ec k , 327 F. 3d 492 ( 7th Cir

. 2003 ) , w e a dd re sse d the a ppl i ca t i o n o fthe F o ur th Am en dm en ti n the c o nt ex t ofchi l d a b us e i nv e s t i g a t i o ns b y the s a me s t a t e a g e nc y at iss u e h er e, th e B u re au , on th e p re m ise s o f a p riv ate s c h o o l

. B e c a u s e w e fi nd H ec kt o b e a bl ue pr i ntf o r o ur anal ysi s, a br i efr evi ew o fi t s f act s a nd hol ding, as they pert ai n t o thi s ca se, i s nec ess ar y. The Bu re au, a divi si on o fthe W i sco nsi n Dep art m ento f H ealth a nd Fa m i l y S er vi ces w hi ch pro vi des chi l d abuse preve nt i on a nd r ela t ed ser vi ces i n M i l w aukee Count y, conduct s i nvest i gat i ons ofchi l d abuse a l l ega t i ons und er est ablis hed prot oco l s i n or der t o subst ant i at e whether or n ot ch ild ab u se h as oc c u rre d . Pr ior to A p ril, 20 03 , W is. Stat. § 4 8. 981( 3) ( c) 1 had bee n i nt er pret ed as provi ding Bu re au 1N o. 07

- 1756 3

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 or l egal c ustodian i fnece ss ary to det erm ine ifthe chi ld is i n need ofpr ot ec t i on or s er vi c es , e xc eptt hatt he pe rs on m aki ng the i nve s t i gat i on m ay en t er a c hi l d’ s d wel l i ng o nl y with pe rm i s s i on f rom the chi ld’ s parent, guard ian, or l egal c ustodian or af ter o b ta in in g a c o u rt o rd er .” case w or kers w i th the author i ty t o i nt er vi ew chi l dren at sc h oo l w itho u t ha v in g to ob tain p er m iss ion from the ir p ar en ts or sc h oo l offic ials

. SeeH ec k , 3 27 F .3d a t 5 02 n . 6. I n H ec k , B u re au ca se w or ke rs rec eiv ed a re p o r t th at a c h ild ha d b e e n s pa nk e d a th i s p r i v a t e s c ho o l , wh i c h f o l l o w ed a co rpor al punishm entpol i cy. Pursuantt o thei r i nvestigat i on, the cas ew or ke rs w entt o the sc hool , i denti fi ed the m se l ve s t o the pr i nc i pal , a nd r eq ue st ed to see the c h i ld for a n inte rv iew . Th e p rin c ip al in itially re fu se d to al l ow the wo r k e r s t o i nt e r v i e w the c hi l d, h o we v e r o nc e th e w or ke rs rec eiv ed co n firm atio n from a W isc on sin di st r i cta t t o r ne y tha t§ 4 8. 98 1( 3) ( c) 1 gave th em the a utho r i ty t o i nt er vi ew ch i l dr en o n sc ho o l pr emi ses w i tho ut ob tain in g c on se n t from eith er the p a r en ts or sc h oo l offici al s, the pri nci pal r el uct ant l y a gr eed t o al l ow the cas ewor k er s t o i nt er vi ew the c hi l d, whi ch the y di d, wi tho ut co nduc t i nga phy si ca l e xa m in at i o n o fthe c hi l d. La t er , the sc h ool and the chi l d’s parent s s ued the cas ew or ker s, alle gin g in p ar t th at th ey co n d u c ted an u n re as on ab le se ar ch of t he s ch o o l pr emi se s an d a n i l l eg als ei zu r e o fthe chi l d i n vi ol at i on of the Fo urth A m endm ent
. Th e d ist ri ct cour tf ound thatthe ca sework er s were prot ect ed by qu a l i fi e d i mm un i ty , a nd we a f fi r med

. Un d e r e s t a b l i s h e d F o u r th Ame n d me n tp r i n c i p l e s , we f ou n d thata pri vat e s chooland i t s s t ud ent s had a re ason able exp ectat ion of p rivacy i n a nd w ithin the sch ool’ s4 N o. 07

- 1756 prem i ses , and thatther ef or e the caseworke rs ’ warra nt l ess se ar c h of the p re m ise s a n d se izu re of the ch ild in ord er to co nduc ta n i nt er vi ew f o r a c hi ld abuse i nv es t i g at i o n, w itho u t th e c on se n t of th e c h ild ’s p ar en ts or sc h oo l offic ials , w as p re su m p tive ly u n re as on ab le. H ec k , 3 27 F
. 3d at 51 0- 13

. W e det er m i ne d, i n pa r t , tha t“ t o the ext en t § 48. 98 1( 3) ( c) 1 au tho r i ze s g o ve r nm en to f fi ci al s t o i nt ervie w ch ild re n su sp ec ted of be in g a b u se d on p r i v a te proper ty w i thout a w ar ra nt or proba bl e cause, conse nt , o r exi gentci rcum st ances, iti s cl ear l y unconst i t ut i onalas appli ed. ” Id. at 51 5-1 6. W e n e ve rth ele ss fou n d tha t a re aso nabl e chi l d w el far e case w or ker would nothave u n d er sto od h is actio n s un d er th e statu te to b e u n c on stit ut i o na l unde r the F o ur th Am en dm en ta tthe tim e o fthe al l eg ed vi o l at i o n, becau se hi s co nduc tdi d no tv i o l at e an y cl ea r l y e st ablishe d l aw. Acco r di ng l y , we he l d tha tthe ca se wor k er s wer e en t i t l ed t o qua l i fi ed im m uni ty , b ut st at ed that“[ a] tthi s j unct u re [A pri l , 20 03]

. . . we now m ake i tcl ear thati ti s pat ent l y unconst i t ut i onalf or go ver nm ent al o f fi ci al s t o sea rch the p re m ises o fa pri vat e o r paro chi al schoo l and/or sei ze a chi l d a t t ending that schoo l withouta w ar ra nto r cour to rder , pro babl e ca use, conse nt , o r exi gentci rcum st ances. ” H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at51 7. I t is throu gh the l en s of H ec k that w e exam i ne the d istrict c ou rt’s c on c lu sio n th a t G re sb ac h is n ot en titl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity.
II. O n Fe b ru ar y 4 , 200 4, a fe m ale fam ily m em b er o f eigh ty ear- old I an made a ch i l d a bus e r epo r tt o the Bur ea u, sta t i ngtha tI an t o l d he r tha tM i ch ae l C. , I an ’ s st epf ather, hi thi m o n the wri st s with a pl ast i c st i ck on J anuary28 ,N o. 07

- 1756 5 20 04

. On F eb r ua r y 5 th, Da na Gr es ba ch , a n a g en twi th the Bur ea u s i nc e 19 98 , w as assi g ne d the c as e. Dur i ngthe nextf our days, Gres bach r evi ew ed the chi l d abuse r epo r t , metwi th a mana g er a tthe Bur eau, Ri t a Zappe n, and spoke t o the f am i l y m em ber wh o re port ed the abu se. O n Fe b ru ar y 9 th , G re sb ac h w en t t o Ian ’s p riv ate sc h oo l, G ood H op e C hristi an A cad em y (“Good H op e”), t o i ntervi ew I an and hi s s t epsi st er , ni ne- yea r- ol d A l exi s. W h en G re sb ac h arr i v e d a t G oo d H op e, sh e m et w ith P rin c ip al C h er yl R ee tz. G re sb ac h h an d ed R ee tz h er bu sine ss c ar d a nd t o l d Re etz tha ts he ne ede d t o s ee I an a nd Ale xi s. Re etz was unf ami l i ar wi th h er ow n r o l e i n a ch i l d a bus e i nv es t i g at i o n— the o nl y r ea l t r ai ni ngs he ha d r e c e i v e d wa s a nn ua l revi e w o fthe f a c ul ty h a nd

boo k, wh i ch del i neat es a t eacher ’ s r esponsibi l i t i es as a m andat or y r epor t er o fchi l d ab use. Reetz a ske d G re sbach i fshe coul d cal l the chi l dren’ s par ent s, t o w hi ch Gres bach sa id n o, an d tha t G re sb ac h w ou ld co n tac t th e p ar e n ts h e r se lf after sh e h ad sp ok en w ith Ian an d A lex is. R ee tz al so ask ed Gresba ch i fshe coul d obse rv e the i nt er vi ew s, and G re sbach re sponded thatReetz nee d notdo s o. Acco rd i ngt o Re etz, s he was c o nc er ne d a bo uta l l o wi ng Gresba ch t o i nt er vi ew th e chi l dren withoutpare nt al conse nt , butshe ass um ed thatbec au se G re sbach w as a B u reau cas ew or ker , Reetz was l ega l l y o bl i gat ed t o al l ow G re sb ac h t o se e th e c h ild re n , an d tha t sh e w as lega lly prohibit ed fro m co nt act i ng the chi l dren’ s par ent s. Gresba c h d i d notas k per m i ssi on fro m Reetz t o physi ca l l y e xa m i ne I an a nd Al ex i s f o r s i g ns o fa buse ; s he bel i ev ed she w as noto bl i ged t o do so , bec ause § 4 8
. 9 8 1 ( 3 ) ( c ) 1 g a v e h e r th e a u th o r i ty t o c o n d u c t a n i nt er vi ew a nd po ss ibl e p hys i ca l e xa m i na t i o n o fthe ch il d ren w ithou t co ns en t. U nd er H ec k , Gres bach’ s be l i ef w as i naccurat e.6 N o. 07

- 1756 Reet z al l owed Gres bach t o use her o f fi ce t o conduct the i nt er vi ew s, and she re tri eve d the chi l dren fro m thei r cl ass ro om s. Gres bach s pentt en t o fi f t een m i nute s al one i n the o f fi ce with eac h chi l d. I an t ol d G resbach that M i chaelC. so m et i m es hit h i m with a fl exibl e s t i ck. Gresba ch exam i ned I an’ s w ri stfor inj uri es, bu tdi d notse e any. Gres bach a ske d the chi l d t o pu l l up his shi rt, and I an co m pli ed

. Gr es ba ch i ns pec t ed hi s ba ckf o r s us pi ci o us inj u rie s, b u t fou n d n on e. D u rin g h er inte rv iew , A lex is t ol d G re sb ac h thather pare nt s s om et i m es gave her “w hoppings, ” but denie d r ecei vi ng any m ar ks or i nj uri es. G resba ch asked A lex is to pu lldow n h er t ights and l ift up her dres s, and A l exi s di d s o. G re sbach exam i ned her l e g s f o r a nyi nj ur i e s , a nd f o un d n o ne . Gr e s b a c h fi ni shed th e in terv iew s a n d left the sc h oo l. Gr es ba ch l at er s po ke w ith the c hi l dr en ’ s m o the r , who w as ve ryupsetabo utwh athad happ ened atthe sc hoo l. The Bur ea u m ad e at t empt s t o meetwi th the pa r en t s an d st ep-par ent s o fI an and A l exi s, butth e m eet i ngs ne ver oc c u rre d . B ec au se n o inj u rie s w e r e o b se rv ed on the ch ildren, the Bureau e vent ual l y c l ose d the ca se. O n Ju n e 1 5, 20 05 , Pla in tiffs (in d ivid u a l l y a n d on be h alf o fthe i r min o r c hi l dr en , Al ex i s an d I an ) s ue d Gr es ba ch , i nd i vi du al l y a nd i n her o f fi ci al capaci ty, and Denis e Re ve l s Ro bi ns o n (t he Bur ea u’ s di r ec t o r ) a nd Hel en e N el son ( the Bureau’ s s ecr et ar y) in thei r offi ci al capaci t i es. Pl ai nt i f f s a l l ege d thatth e d efend ant s ( 1) subj ect ed each c h ild to an u n re as on ab le sea rc h an d se izu r e a t th eir p riv ate sc h oo l, in vio lation of the Fou rth A m en d m en t; ( 2) vi ol at ed a ll o fthe Pl ai nt i f f s’ r i ght s t o f am i l i al r el at i ons und er the Fo urt eenth A m en d m en t ; and ( 3) vi olate d allo fthe Pl ai nt i f f s’ s r i ght s t o proce du ra l due process under th e F ourt eenth A m endm ent
. Pl ai nt i f f s a l soN o. 07

- 1756 7

The di s t ri c tc our tdi s m i s s ed a l l ofPl aintif f s ’ c l ai m s f or 2 eq ui t abl e re l i ef, whi c h i nc l uded a l l c l ai m s ag ai ns tRobi nson and Nel s on, as wel l as s uppl em en t al s t at e l aw c l ai m s — non e of w hich are i ss ues bef or e us today. The courtfurther denied def en dant s ’ m ot ion for s um m ar y j udgm en ton Pl ai nt i f f s ’ due (co n tin u ed ...) ch all en ged the con sti tuti ona li ty of W is. St at. § 48.981(3)( c)1 as ap p lied , sou gh t a n inju n c tion ag ain st d efe n d an ts to pr o hibi te nf o r ce m en to fthe s t atut e i n a manne r i nc o nsi st e ntwi th Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g ht s a nd t o di re ct defe nd ant s t o am end thei r proce du re s an d perso nnel t r a i n i n g , a n d r e q u e s t e d a d e c l a r a t i o n th a t th e l a s ts en t en ce o f§ 4 8. 98 1( 3) ( c) 1 was unc o ns t i t ut i o na l

. The de fe ndan t s r es po nde d tha tthe i r c ond uctdi d no tv i o l at e an y c lea rl y e st abl i shed const i t ut i onalr i ght s, and thatthere

for e th ey w er e p ro tec ted by q u alifie d im m u n ity. B oth p ar ties m ov ed for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. On M ar ch 19, 20 07, the di st ri ctco urtgr ant ed part i al sum m ar y j ud gm enti n fav or o fthe Pl ai nt i f f s, fi nd i ng that Gr es ba ch v i o l at ed the c hi l dr en ’ s F o ur th Am en d m en t ri ght s t o be fr ee fro m unrea sonab l e s ear ches and sei zure s. T he cou rtheld tha t w hile Gresb ach ob ta in ed volun tary c on sent fro m Reetz t o conducti nt er vi ew s o fthe childr en , Gr es ba ch di d no tha ve c o ns en t t o c o nduc tthe se a r c h e s o f the ch ild re n ’s b od ies , th u s v iola ting the ir rights to b e free from un reason able search es. T he cou rt further f ound thatthose r i ght s were cl ear l y e st abl i shed at the t im e of the all eged viol atio n u nd er H ec k , i n tha t a r e a s o na b l e c h i l d we l f a r e wo r k e r wo u l d h a v e k n o wn tha tsh e l a c k e d a utho r i ty t o c o nd uc ts uc h a s e a r c h. Ac c o r di n g l y , th e c o u r tde ni e d G r e s b a c h ’ s mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm entunder qual i fi ed i m m unity. 28 N o. 07

- 1756

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 pro c es s c l ai m s withoutpr ej udi c e, an d grante d a s t ay, pe ndi ng this ap p eal. III. W e r evi ew a district court ’ s deni al o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent on quali fi ed i m m unity g ro u nd s deno vo . Sal l e nge rv. O a k es , 473 F.3d 731 , 739 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e w il l affi rm the distri ct court’ s j ud gm en t ifw e fi nd th at a p lai ntiff
“ pr e s e nt [ e d] a v e r s i o n o f the f a c t s tha t i s s up port ed by the ev i dence and und er wh i ch def endants wou ld n otbe ent i t l ed t o quali fi ed i m m unity. ” Bore l l o v. Al l is on , 44 6 F
. 3d 74 2, 746 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ci t at i o n o m i t ted). Under the quali fi ed i m m unity a n aly sis, an o f fi ci al per f or m i ng di scre t i onar y funct i ons i s i m m u n e fro m sui ti fher “co nd uct co ul d r ea so na bl y have b een tho ug htc o ns i st en twi th the r i g ht s s he i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e v i o l at ed

. ” Id

. ( i nt er nal quot ati ons om it ted). Whe n e v a l u a t i n g a q u a l i fi e d i mmun i ty c l a i m, we m us t fi rst d ecid e w he ther, t aken i n th e li gh t m ost favorable t o the p la inti ff s, the fact s show tha t the offici al’s c on d u c t viola ted a c on stitu tion al rig h t. Fi nke l v. Cr u p p e ni nk , 32 6 F
. 3d 90 3, 90 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( ci t i ngSaucie r v. Katz , 53 3 U .S. 19 4, 12 1 S .C t. 21 51 , 150 L .E d .2 d 2 72 (20 01 )). “O n ly ifthe a ns wer i s affi r m at i ve do es the c o ur ti nq uire w hether th e offi ci al enj oy s qual i fi ed i m m unity. ” H os ty v . C a rter , 4 12 F
. 3d 7 31, 73 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. I fa c o ns t i t ut i onal vi ol at i on coul d b e m ade out on a f avora b le v i ew ofthe par t i es’ subm i ssi ons, the next st ep i s t o askwh ether the r i ghtwas “c lea rlyes t abl i shed. ” Id. T o b e “ c lea rly establi sh ed , ” the contours of the rig h t m us t be su ffi ciently clear tha t a reason able offi cial w ou ld u nd er-N o. 07

- 1756 9 sta n d tha t w h at sh e is d oin g v iola tes tha t righ t. Lan ds t r om v. Illin o is D ept. of

C hil dren an d F a m ily Servi ces , 89 2 F
. 2d 670, 675 ( 7th Cir

. 19 90) ( quot i ng Ande rs on v. Cr e i ght on , 483 U

. S. 63 5, 6 40 , 1 07S

. Ct

. 3 03 4, 9 7 L. Ed. 2d 52 3 (1986) )

. I fthe ri ghtw as “ cl ear l y e st abl i shed, ” the o f fi ci al i s no tent i t l ed to q u alifie d im m u n ity from su it.

A. Vi o l a t i o n o fa C o ns t i t ut i o na l R i g ht Ou r thres hol d i nquir y i s whether Gresba ch vi ol at ed I an and A l exi s’ s F ourth A m endm entr i ght s t o be fre e fro m unreas onabl e s ear ches. The Fo urth A m endm ent , as ap p lied to the state s th ro u gh the Fou rtee n th A m en d m en t, pr o t ec t s i ndi vi dual s agai ns tunr ea so na bl e se ar ch es a nd se izu re s o f the ir p er so n s, h om es , an d e f f ec ts, w itho u t a w ar ra n t su p p or ted by p ro b ab le c au se . See U .S. C on st. a men d. I V. The pr o t e c t i o ns a f f o r de d b y the F o ur th Am e nd

m e n t a p p l y n o t o n l y t o th e a c t i v i t i e s o f c r i mi n a l a uth or ities, b u t civ il au th o r ities a s w ell, Ne w Je rs eyv . T
. L
. O. , 469 U

. S. 325, 335, 1 0 5 S.C t. 733, 83 L
. E d

. 2d 720 (1985), in c lu d in g c h i l d w elfa re w or ke rs . H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at50 9; D a ryl H . v. Co ler , 801 F.2d 8 9 3, 90 0 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); see also B rokaw v. M erce r C ounty , 235 F.3d 10 00 , 101 0 n .4 (7th C ir. 20 00 ) (fin d in g th at th e F o u r th A m en d m en t pr ote c ts st ud ent s fro m unrea sonab l e s ear ches and sei zures by p ub li c sch ool offici als); Jone s v. H unt , 41 0 F
. 3d 1221 , 12 25 (10 th C ir. 20 05 ) (“T h er e is n o ‘s oc ial w or ke r’ ex c ep tio n to th e F ou rth A m en d m en t.”) (c itation om itted ); Ten e nb aum v. Wi l l ia ms , 1 93 F
. 3d 58 1, 6 06 ( 2d. Ci r 1 99 9) ( ho l di ngthe F o ur th Am en dm en tdo ct r i ne a ppl ie s t o s ea r ch es a nd seizure s m ad e in the contex t of ch il d abu se investigat ions). Fir st w e d ete rm in e w h et h er G re sb ac h ’s c on d u c t con stit ut e d a “ s e a r c h” wi thi n the mea ni ngo fthe F o ur th Am e nd

-10 N o. 07

- 1756

m ent
. “W hen the Fourth A m endm entwas ra t i fi ed, as no w, t o ‘ se ar ch ’ mean t‘ t o l o o ko ve r o r thr o ug h f o r the pu rpos e o ffi nd i ng so m ethi ng ; t o explo re ; t o exam i ne by i n s p ec tion
. . . .’ ” H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at51 0 ( quot i ng Ky l l o v. U nited Sta tes , 533 U
. S. 27, 33 n. 1, 121 S. Ct. 203 8, 150 L .E d .2d 94 (20 01 )); s e e Johns on v. Phe l an , 69 F. 3d 144, 14 5 ( 7th Cir

. 19 95) ( hol d i ng thato bser vat i on o funcl othed bod ies i s a for m of a searc h u nd er the Fourth A m en d m en t)

. W i th in the co nt exto fchi l d abuse i nvest i gat i ons, physi cal exam i nat i ons conduct ed by chi l d w el f ar e ca sework er s, that includ e visual e x am inati ons of p ort ions of a ch il d ’s b od y w h ich are n or m all y c ov er ed by clo th in g, im p lica te F o ur th Am endm en tc o nc e r ns , a nd a r e wi thi n the s c o pe of s ea rc h es u n d er the am en d m en t. Da ry l H. , 801 F .2d at 899- 900. Thus, the vi sual o bserv atio ns o fI an’ s s t om ach and A l exi s’ s l egs byGres bach t o l oo k f or si gns o fabuse mus tbe s e a r c he s u nd e r the s c o pe o fthe F o ur th Am e nd

m en t. Of c ours e, the Fou rth A m endm entpro hibi t s o nl y those se ar c h es tha t are u n re as on ab le. See Ver non ia S ch ool D i s t
. 47 J v. Act on , 51 5 U.S

. 64 6, 65 2, 11 5 S

. C t. 23 86 , 132 L.Ed. 2d 564 ( 1995 ) ( “A s the t exto fthe Fo urth A m endm enti nd i cat es, the ul t i m at e m eas ure ofthe co nst i t ut i onal i ty of a go ver n m en tal se ar c h is re as o n a b l en es s.” ); St anl ey v . H e ns on , 33 7 F
. 3d 96 1, 9 64 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( “I nc l ude d wi thi n the Four th A m endm ent ’ s pro t ect i on i s the ri ght t o be fre e fro m unr ea so na bl e se ar ch es o fo ne ’ s unc l o the d b o dy. ”)

. To d et er m i ne r eas onabl eness under the Fo urth A m endm en t, w e balanc e the d egree of the i ntrusion on the i nd ivi d ua l’ s pr i v a c y i n t e r e s t s a g a i n s tth e g o v e r n me n t ’ s n e e d f o r t he se ar c h

. Sh ell v. U nited Sta tes , 448 F.3d 951 , 956 (7th C ir. 20 06 )

. “ [ W ] he the r a sea r ch i s ‘ r ea so na bl e, ’ i n the c o nst i t ut i o na l s en se , wi l l v ary acco r di ngt o the c o nt ex to ftheN o. 07

- 1756 11

se ar c h .” Da ry l H. , 80 1 F

. 2d at90 0. G re sbach’ s s ear ches of the c hi l dr en ’ s bo di es t o o kpl ace on pri va t e pr o per ty , a nd H ec km ade cl ear thata w ar ra ntles s search c onducte d on pri vat e pr oper ty i s pre sum pti vel y unre as on abl e, wh ether the g o ve r nm en t ’ s m o t i va t i o n i s t o i nv es t i g at e vio l at i o ns o fc r i mi na l l a ws o r b r e a c he s o fo the r s t a t ut o r y s t andards, so l ong as the per son has a r eas onable expect at i on o f pri vacyi n the pre m ises o n w hi ch the se ar ch t oo k pl ace. H ec k , 327 F.3d at 511 (ci tat ions om it ted). A r eas onabl e e xpect at i on o fpri vacy i s pre sentf or Four th A m endm entpurposes wh en ( 1) o ne exhibi t s a n act ual o r subj ect ive e x p ect at i on o fpri vacy , and ( 2) that e xp e c t a t i o n i s o ne tha t s o c i e ty i s pr e pa r e d t o r e c o gni ze as re aso nabl e. U nit e d S t at e s v. Am aral

- Est rada , 50 9 F
. 3d 820, 82 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). E ve n a lim ite d s e ar c h of a p er so n is a su bstantiali nv asion of privacy. “A se arch of a ch il d ’s perso n or o fa cl ose d pu rs e o r other bag car rie d on her per s o n . . . i s un do ub t e dl y a s e v e r e v i o l a t i o n o fsubj ect i ve ex p ec tat i on o fpri vacy . ” Da ry l H. , 80 1 F

. 2d at90 0 ( quot i ng T
. L
. O. , 469 U

. S. at33 0 , 1 05 S.Ct. 733). H ow ever, i t is unnecess ar y t o show a subj ect i ve expect at i on o f pr i va cyi n i ns tances o fs ea r ch es o r s ei zu r es o fy o ung chi l dren— i ti s m or e a pp ro priat e t o consi der whether the par ent s m ani f est ed a subj ect i ve expect at i on o fpri vacy in the p re m ise s w ithin w h ich th e s ea rc h took p lac e. H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at5 12

. Pr i va t e sc ho o l s, b y the i r v er y o p erati o n, exhibi ta subj ect i ve expect at i on o fpri va c y i n thei r prem ise s. Id. at51 1. The Pl ai nt i f f s m an ifest ed a s ubj ective ex p ec tation of p riv ac y b y p lac in g th eir c h ild re n in Goo d Hope Aca demy, a nd e nt r us t i ng the i r ch i l dr en t o the car e o fthe sc hool ’ s o f fi ci al s in l oco parentis . Seeid

. M or eo ve r , an ex p ec tation of p riv ac y is o b j ec tive ly re as on ab le w h er e p ar e n ts w h o p lac e th eir ch ild re n in12 N o. 07

- 1756 pri vat e s chool s expectthatthe par ent s’ expre ss del ega tion of p ar en tal au th or ity to sc h oo l offic ials w i l l b e bo th ac kn ow led ge d a n d r es p ec ted b y go ve rn m en t ac tors
. H ec k , 32 7 F .3d at 51 2. W e fin d tha t Pla in tiffs h a d a leg itim ate e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y a t Go o d Ho p e , a n d th e r e f o r e t he se ar c h es of the ch ild re n ’s b od ies to inv es tiga te c h ild abuse w er e pr esum pti vel y unreaso nabl e, unl ess they f al l withi n an e xcept i on t o th e w ar ra ntr equi re m ento f th e F ou rth A m en d m en t. Seeid

. at51 1. Gresba ch ar gues thati ti s o bj ecti vel y r eas onabl e under th e F ou rth A m en d m en t for a c h ild w e l far e a ge n t t o vi sual l y i nspect these ar eas of a chi l d’s body f or inju ri es afte r re c eiv in g g en er al c on se n t from the ch ild ’s p riv ate schoo l pri nci pal t o i nvest i gat e chi l d a b u se. A n est abl i shed except i on t o the w ar ra ntr equi re m enti s a se ar ch c on d u c ted p u rs u an t t o c on se n t. Schnec kloth v. Bu st am onte , 412 U

. S. 218, 2 1 9 , 93 S. C t. 2041, 36 L.Ed

. 2d 854 (1973); U nited Sta tes v. M o o re , 3 75 F.3d 58 0, 585 (7th Cir. 2004 ). W e a re aware thatthi s e xcept i on i s g rudgingl y g ra nt ed b ec au se “th e p riv ac y in tere sts p ro tec ted by the Fou rth A m endm entare t o be j eal ousl y g uarded. ” H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at 513 ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . He a l t h & Ho s p . C o rp . o f M ar i on C ounty , 6 20 F
. 2d 12 01 , 1 20 9 (7t h Ci r . 1 98 0) )

. A co nse ns ua l s ea r ch i s m an i f es t l y r ea so na bl e unde r the F o ur th Am en dm en ta s l o nga s i tr emai ns wi thi n the sc op e o f co n s en t. See Fl or i da v

. Ji m e no , 50 0 U.S

. 24 8, 25 1, 11 1 S

. Ct

. 1 80 1, 1 14 L. Ed. 2d 29 7 ( 19 91 )

. Th e sco pe o fc o nse nti s “l i m i t ed bythe b r ea dth o fa ct ua l c o ns en t , a nd w hether the sear c h re m ai ned w i thi n the bo und ar i es of t he conse nti s a q ue s t i o n o ff a c tt o b e de t e r mi ne d fr om the t ot al i ty o fal l the ci rcum st ances . ” Unit e d S t at e s v. Lo ng , 42 5 F .3d 4 8 2 , 4 8 6 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (cita tion om itted ). “In d e t e r mi n i n g th e s c o p e o fa def en d a n t ’ s c o n s e n t , weN o. 07

- 1756 13 apply a n obj ect i ve st andard: ‘ w hatwould the typi cal re aso nabl e per son have und er st oo d by the exchange betw een the o f fi c[ i al ] and the [ conse nt or ] ?’ ” Id. ( quo t i ng U nited Sta tes v. R a ney , 342 F.3d 551 , 556 (7th C ir. 2003)). A pp l i ed t o the cas e sub judice , the i nquir y i s wh ether itw as reason able for G resba ch t o beli eve that Reetz’s c on se n t t o in terv iew the ch ild r e n in c lu d ed co n se n t t o conducta sea rch of the chi l dren’ s bo die s. W e fi nd that i twas not
. Based o n G re sbach’s re prese nt at i ons that sh e n ee d ed to “s ee the ch ild re n ” t o inv es tiga te a c h ild abuse al l ega t i on, and thatR ee tz n eed notbe prese ntf or the i nt er vi ew, Re etz al l o wed Gr es ba ch t o s pea kt o the c h ild re n p riv ate ly in ord er to o b tain the ir sta tem en ts aboutan a l l egation o fchi l d abuse. A r eas onabl e per son woul d n o t h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d th i s t o me a n th a t R e e t z a uth or iz e d G re sb ac h to se ar c h the ch ild re n ’s b od ies . I t is un d ispu ted that G resba ch d id n ot ask R eetz f or perm i ssi on t o sea rch the chi l dren f or i nj uri es. Gres bach ar g ue s tha tRe etz’ s “g en er alc o ns en t ” t o inte r vi ew i ncl ude d the c o ns en tt o i ns pec tthe c hildren’ s bo di es , b ut sh e cite s t o no su p p ort ing relevant authority, an d w e are unaw ar e o fany case u nd er Fo urth A m endm entj uri spr ude nc e tha tpr o sc r ibe s thi s no t i o n. I n s o me i ns t a nc e s , the l i ne i mpl i c at i ng F o ur th Am e nd

m e n tc o n c e r n s i s b l u r r e d wh e n i ta p p l i e s t o th e g o v e r nm en t an d c h i l d ab u se inv es tiga tion s. See H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at 51 4 (a c kn ow led gin g th a t th er e a re circ u m sta n c es in w hi ch the l aw of w ar ra nt and pr obab l e cause d oe s n ot w or k e f f ect i vel y i n the chi l d rem oval o r chi l d exam i nation co n tex t); L a n d s t r o m, 892 F. 2d at 676 ( hold in g that a se ar c h o r sei zure o fa chi l d by a st at e s oci al worke r m ustbe “r eas onabl e, ” butthatdoes notnece ssa ri l y r eq u ire p ro b ab le c au se or a w ar ra n t); Da ry l H. , 80 1 F

. 2d at14 N o. 07

- 1756

H ec kf or eclo sed the ju stificatio n o f t h e “sp ecial n eed s” 3 ex em pt i on i n thi s c ont ex t , be c aus e s t at es have “t he abi l i t y t o t ake im m ed iate ac tion to en sur e the p hy sic al safety o f a ch ild s us pec t ed o fabus e who i s l oc at ed o n pr i vat e pro per t y” t hr ough the exi gent c ir cum st ances ex cepti on to the w a rr a n t r equire

m ent ofthe Fourth Am endm ent. H ec k , 327 F. 3d at 517 n. 20. W hile it seem s un likely fro m the re cor d tha t G resb ach cou ld have r ea s ona bl y s us pec t ed the c hi l dre n’ s s afet y was atr i s k, she d oe s no t raise this issue o n a p p eal. 90 2 (s tatin g th at th e g ov er n m en t m u st fu lfill its re sp on sibil ity t o protect the youn g un d er diffi cu ltcircu m stance s). Re co g ni zi ngthe s en si t i ve nat ur e o fthe se ty pes o fi nvest i g at i o ns , o f fi ci al s m aymake a s ea r ch o r s ei zu re u n der exi gent ci rcum st ances, w here they have re ason to b elie ve l i f e o r l i m b i s i n j eopar dy. Se e Br okaw , 23 5 F
. 3d at 3 1 0 1 0
. W e do no t e xe mpt c hi l d we l f a r e wo r k e r s f ro m adheri ng t o basi c F ourth A m en dm entpri nci ple s under no n- ex i g en tcircum st an ce s—t o do s o woul d b e i m pr udent. I n these ci rcum st ances, cas ew orker s ca n t ake pre l i m i na r y st eps s ho r to fs ea r ch es , s uch a s i nt er vi ewi ng the chi l d a nd a parent, or obt ai ni ng a w arra n t ei ther p erson ally to cond uc t a search or to ha ve a d octor p erf o r m the s ea r ch

. Se e Roe v. Te xas D ept. of Pr ot e ct i vean d R egu la to ry S ervic es , 299 F.3d 395 , 407 (5th C ir. 2002). Gresba ch advoca t es the posi t i on thata w ar ranti s f or p olic e o ffice rs , no t ca se w or ke rs , an d tha t th e p ro b ab le c a u se an d w ar ra n t req u ire m en t are m or e a p p ro p ria tely g ea r ed t o war ds the i nv es t i gati on ofthe a bus er s, no tthe vi ct i m s. W e di sag re e. The Fo urth A m endm entpre ser ves th e r i g h tt o b e fr e e fr o m wa r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s b y the gov er nm ent , withoutlim i t i ng thatr i ghtt o one type o f offic ial. Se e Calab r e t t a v. Fl oyd , 189 F.3d 808 , 813-14 (9th C ir.N o. 07

- 1756 15 1999 ) . T h e requi re m entthata chi l d w el f ar e work er o bt ai n the equi val ent ofa w ar ra ntbef or e co nd uct i ng a se ar c h (ab se n t ex ige n t circ u m sta n c es ) ca n effe c tive ly p rot ect children , w ithou t ha ving to ex cu se w orkers fro m o bt ai ning advance j ud i ci al approv al o fse ar ches a n d se izu re s. H ec k , 327 F.3d at 51 4; see Ten e nb aum , 19 3 F
. 3 d a t6 0 4

. Add i t i o na l l y , n o t hi ng i n the r e c o r d s up p or ts G re sb ac h ’s b elie f tha t o b tain in g a w ar ra n t w ou ld ha ve de l ay ed an d thus c o m pr o m i se d he r i nv es t i g at i o n. Because Gre sbach conduct ed a s ear c h o f e ach chi l d on p riv ate p ro p er ty w itho u t con se n t, a w ar ra n t or p ro b ab le c au se , or ex ige n t circ u m sta n c es , Ian an d A lex is’s Fou rth A m endm entr i ght s t o be fre e fr om unrea sonab l e s ear ches we r e v i o l a t e d.

B. Clea r l y Est abli shed L aw D esp it e her p arti cipa tion i n this cons ti tuti ona ll y i m p erm i ssibl e co nd uct , Gres bach m ay never thel ess be shi el ded fro m l i abi l i ty f or ci vi l dam age s i fPl ai nt i f f s f ai l t o m eet thei r burden ofpro vi ng thatGres bach’ s a ct i ons vi ol at ed cl ear l y e st abl i shed st at ut or y o r const i t u tio nal r i ght s o f w h ich a r e as on ab le p er so n w ou ld h av e k n ow n . H opev. P elz er , 53 6 U.S. 730, 73 9, 12 2 S

. Ct. 25 08, 15 3 L. Ed

. 2d 666 ( 2002 ) ( ci t i ng Harlow v. Fi tzgerald , 45 7 U
. S. 80 0, 81 8, 10 2 S. C t. 2 7 2 7, 73 L .E d .2d 39 6 (1 98 2)); Son nl e i t ne rv. York, 30 4 F. 3d 70 4, 716- 17 ( 7th Cir

. 20 02)

. I n det er m i ni ng wh ether a def endan t’s all ege d act i ons vi ol at ed a c l ear l y e st abl i sh ed r i g ht , c o ur ts m aypr o per l y t ak e i nt o a cc o unta ny i nfo rm ation the def endant shoul d have r eas onabl y o btain ed

. Jones v. W il helm , 425 F.3d 455 , 461 (7th C ir. 2005 ). M o r eo ve r , the s al i en tque st i o n i s whethe r the l aw a tthe tim e o f the d isp u ted co n d u c t gav e d efe n d an ts fair16 N o. 07

- 1756

w ar ni n g th at thei r al l ege d t re at m ento fpl ai nt i f f s was u n c on stitu tion al. Id .; s e e al s o Cr e i ght on , 483 U

. S. at640, 10 7 S.C t. 30 34 (“T h is is n ot to sa y th at an o f ficia l ac tion is prot ect ed by quali fi ed i m m unity unl ess the ver y a ct i on in q u es tion h as p re vio u sly be en h eld u n law fu l,

. . . b u t it i s t o s a y th a t i n th e l i g h t o f p r e - e x i s t i n g l a w th e u n l a wfulnes s m us t be ap p aren t. ”) ( internal ci tat ions om it ted). As we s t a t e d a b o v e , t he st r uc t ur e s o ft he F o ur th Am e nd

m en t ap p ly to so c ial w or ke rs . H ec k , 32 7 F
. 3d at51 1. Pl ai nti f f s ar g ue tha to ur de ci si o n i n H ec kpr ec l ude s Gr es ba ch’s unde r s t a nd i ngo fh e r r i g ht s t o c o nd uc ta c hi l d a b us e investigat ion un d er § 48. 981(3)(c)1 , and w e agree. “[T]o th e e x te n t § 48 .98 1(3 )(c )1 a u th or ize s g ov er n m en t officia ls to co n d u c t an i n v e s tig atio n of ch ild ab u se on p riv ate proper ty withouta w ar ra nto r proba bl e cause, co nsent , o r exi gentci rcum st ances, the st at ut e is unconst i t ut i onal

. ” Id

. at51 5- 16. Con sid er i ng the f act s a bove i n the l i ghtm ost fav or ab le to th e P lain tiffs, w e fin d tha t a rea so n ab le ch i l d wel f ar e wor k er woul d ha ve k no wn tha tc o ndu ct i ng a sea rch ofa chi l d’s body under hi s cl othes, o n pr i va t e pr o per ty , wi tho utc o ns en to r the pr es en ce o fa ny oth er ex c ep tion to th e w ar ra n t re q u ire m en t of th e F o u rth Am en dm en t , i s i n di r ec tv i o l at i o n o ft he c hi l d’ s co ns t i t ut i onalr i ghtt o be fre e fro m unrea sonab l e s ear ches. G r e sb ac h arg u es tha t H ec ki s di st i ngui shabl e fro m this case , bec ause He ck d id n otaddress the i ssue ofsco pe of conse nti n the co nt extof c hi l d abuse i nvest i gat i ons. H ow ev er , a ge n er al c on stitu tion al ru le a lre ad y id en tifi ed m aya ppl y wi th o bv i o us c l ar i ty t o the s pec i fi c co ndu c ti n qu e s t i o n, e v e n tho ug h the v e r y a c t i o n i n qu e stion h as n ot p re vio u sly b e en h eld u n law fu l. H ope , 536 U
. S. at74 1, 12 2 S

. Ct. 25 08 ( quot i ng La nier , 52 0 U.S

. 25 9, 27 0- 71 , 11 7 S.C t. 12 19 , 13 7 L .E d .2d 43 2 (1 99 7)); see also Jo nes, 41 0N o. 07

- 1756 17 F. 3d at12 30 ( hol ding thato f fi ci al s co m m i t t i ng o ut ra geo us, ye t suigene ris , con stitu tion al v iola tion s o u gh t no t t o sh ield the ir be h av ior b eh in d q u a lified im m u n ity sim p ly be ca us e an o the r o f fi ci alha s no tpr ev ious l y ha d the a udaci ty t o com m i ta si m i l ar t ra nsgr ess i on)

. Offic ials can st i l l be on not i ce thatthei r conductvi ol at es est ab l i shed l a w e ve n in n ov el fa c tu al c irc u m sta n c es . H ope , 5 3 6 U. S. at 741, 122 S. C t. 25 08. I n thi s ca se, i twas cl ear l y e st abl i shed thatthe sc ope o fco nsentt o i nt er view d oes not ex tend t o a search of an i nd ivi d ua l’ s bo d y un d er Ji m e no and i t s pro geny. G re sb ac h fu rth er arg u es (as the ca se w or ke rs d id in H ec k ) thatwe shoul d app l y the “ re aso nabl eness ” fra m ewor kwe l ai d o uti n Da ry l H. , wher e we he l d thatthe c o ns t i t ut i o na l i t y ofa v i s ua l i ns pe c t i o n o fa c hi l d’ s b o dy w ho m ay be a v ictim o fchi l d abuse s houl d be e val uat ed u n d er the rea so n ab len e s s t e st of th e F ou rth A m en d m en t. Da ry l H. , 89 2 F
. 2d at902 (“[ U ] nd er the ci rcum st ances of thatpart i cul ar se ar ch i n a publ i c sc hool , w e coul d notsa y th at a vi sual i nspect i on o fa chi l d’s body c an o nl y b e perf or m ed i fa s oc ialworke r has pro babl e ca use o r obt ai ne d a war r an t
. ”)

. W e dec l i ne d t o a cc eptthi s ar g um ent i n H ec k , and w e do the sa m e her e. The ke y di f f er ence be twee n the s ea r ch es i n Da ryl H. a nd i n H ec kwas tha tthe s e a r c h i n Dary l H. t o o kp l a c e o n pu b l i c s c ho o l g r o un ds w ith th e c on se n t of p u b lic s c h oo l offic ials , w h er ea s in H ec k , as her e, the se ar ch t oo k pl ace on pri vat e pr oper ty. H ec k , 327 F.3d at 51 4. H ec kfou n d tha t Da ry l H. st ood fo r t he p r o po s i t i o n tha ta l o we r s t a nd a r d o fs c r ut i nya pp l i es to se ar c h es an d se izu re s c on d u c ted by gov er n m en t offic ials on p u b lic s c h oo l p ro p er ty. Id. ( ci t i ng Broka w , 23 5 F. 3d at10 11)

. Thi s case fall s s quarel y withi n the sc ope o f H ec k , as th e s ea rc h took p lac e a t a p riv ate sc h oo l.18 N o. 07

- 1756 W hile w e rec ogn ize that “c hild w elf are case w orkers are o f t en c al l ed upo n t o make di ff icul tde ci si o ns wi tho utthe be ne fi to fe xt en ded del ibe r at i o n” i n o r d er to pr ev en t“ the m ostvul nera bl e m em ber s o fso ci ety, childre n oft ender yea rs , fro m bei ng physi cal l y a bused, ” H ec k , 32 7 F.3 d at 525, w e d o not bel iev e tha t requ iri ng a child w elf are c a s e wo r k e r t o a c t i n a c c o r da nc e wi th b a s i c F o ur th Am e nd

m en t p rinciples is a n u nd ue bu rd en on the ch il d w elf are sys t em , part i cul ar l y when i t is nece ssa ryt o conductan ex am in a ti o n o f a c h ild ’s b od y, w h ich is u n d ou b ted ly
“ fr i g h t en i ng , h u mi l i a t i n g , a n d i n t r u s i v e ” t o th e c h i l d

. At the t i me Gr e s b a c h c o nd uc t e d the s e a r c he s a tGo o d Ho pe in 20 04 , t h e r e w as a c lea rly es tab lish ed d oc trin e a s to whata ct i o ns a Bur ea u c as ewo r k er mustt ak e w he n co nd u c ti n g a ch ild ab u se inv es tiga tion at a p riv ate sc h oo l. Today we re i t er at e H ec k ’ s defi ni t i ve h o l di ng , a l o ngthe l i nes o fthe Fo urth A m endm ent pri nci ple s o ut l i ned abov e, th at it i s a vio lation of a c h ild ’s c on stitu tion al rig h ts to c o n d u c t a se ar c h of a c h ild at a p riv ate sc h oo l w itho u t a wa r r a n to r p r o b a b l e c a u s e , c o n s e n t , o r e x i g e n tc i r c u mst ances.
C ONC L US I ON For the f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ento fthe di st ri ct cour ti s A FFI RMED .

USCA- 02- C- 0072

— 5- 19- 08