## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2701 M AR K S IL IVEN, et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. I NDI ANA D EPART MENT OF C HI LD S ERVICES, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-1192-WTL-D ML

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 21, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 16, 2011

B efore F LA UM, M A NI ON, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F L AUM, Cir cu i tJudg e . In J anuary20 08, Ter esa S i l i ven d iscovered bruises on he r then -tw o-year-ol d son C
. S. ’s ar m a few hour s a fterpi cki ng hi m up f ro m daycar e a t th e h om e o f A sh ley W oo d s. T er es a ’ s h u sb an d M ar k t old he r tha t he d id notkno w ho w C. S
. ha d g o tt enthe br ui se s. The S i l i ve ns fi l ed a ch i l d abus e rep ort w i ththe po l i ce . The ca se was r efer r ed to the Indi an a Depa r tment ofChil d Ser vi ces ( “DC S”) , and as si gned to cas e m anage r2 N o. 10

- 2701 A m berLuedike
. Towards the end ofan e i ght- day i nvesti gat i on into both W oo ds and the S i l i vens, Luedik e di scove re d a DC S file i nd i cating tha t M ar k had be en a c c us e d o fc hi l d ab us e b y h i s then- fi ft e e n- y e a r - o l d s t e pd au gh teri n 2 00 3. The da y a fte r Lue di k e di sc o ve r ed th e r epo r t, s he a nd T er r y S ut tl e, the di r ec to r o fthe W ay ne County DC S, deci ded to r em ove C. S. fro m the Si l i ven hom e. T h ey did noto btain a c ourto rderas i t was Fr i day afternoon , a nd theydi d not be l i eve ther e was adequat e tim e to do so
. Instea d ofputti ng C. S. i n f ost er car e, Luedike a n d Suttl e ul ti m ate l y a rr anged to have T er es a t ak e C .S. to h is gr an d m ot h er ’s h o u s e i n O h io. A detention h eari ng was hel d the f ol l owing M onday, after w hi ch the cour t concl ud ed that no probab le c au se exi ste d a t that t i m e t o bel i eve thatC. S. ’ s physi cal he alth w as ser io us ly en d an gered
. Th e Si li ven s w ere p er m itt ed to ta ke C .S. ho m e. S o o n t h er ea fte r, th e in ve st ig a t i o n wa s c l o s e d. Th e S i l i v e n s fi l e d s u i ta g a i n s tL u e d i k e , S u t t l e , a n d the I nd i ana DCS, al l eging co nsti tuti onaland sta te l aw vi ol ati ons. The di st r i ctc o ur t co nc l ude d tha t S ut tl e an d L ue d ike ( th e only de fend an t s a t i ssu e on ap p eal) w ere en t i t l e d t o s ummary j ud g men t o n the fe de r a l c l a i m s o n qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty gr o unds , fi ndi ngtha t th e co ns ti tu
ti onalr i ghts al l ege dlyvi ol ate d w er e no t cl ea rly e stabl i s h e d i n J an u a r y 2 0 0 8
. F o r th e f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I . B a c kg r o und T he Sil ivens began taking their son C
. S. t o a d a y care run byA shl ey W oo ds i n ear l y 2 007. By J anuary20 08,N o. 10

- 2701 3 Wo o d s a n d h e r h u s b a n d h a d b e g un h a v i n gs o me diffi cul ty w i th C. S. , and C. S. would cr y when Te re sa dr o pped hi m o ffin the mor ni ng . Howev er, the S i l i ve ns had not s er i ousl y c onsi dered fi nd i ng ano therdaycar e. W hen Tere sa pick ed up C
. S. fr om daycar e o n J anuary16 , 2008, W o o ds to l d he r tha t C. S
. ha d a ct ed up i n the a fternoon a nd had to be pu t in “ti m e o ut. ” W hi l e Ter esa was u n d re ss in g C .S. th at n i g h t s h e n ot ice d br u ise s o n h is ar m . C. S
. s ai d tha t th e br ui se s di d no t hurt, and th athe di d n o tkn o w h o w h e h a d g o t t e n th e m. Th e S i l i v e ns to ok C.S
. to the Ric hm ond Pol ice D epart m ent ( “RPD ”) th at n igh t a n d filed a c h ild ab u se rep or t. Th e r e po rto fab us e wa s r e fe r r e d t o the DC S
. On J anuary 1 8, 20 08, DC S case m anage r Lu edi ke vi si ted the Siliven hom e. A t the ti m e, M ar k was athom e with C .S. M ar k t old L u ed ike th at h e w as n otcu rre n tly wor k i ngdue t o a d isabi l i ty, a nd tha t he woul d b e ca r i ng f o r C. S
. a t home un ti lthe matt erwas s et tl ed. M ar ke xp lain ed th e inc id en t to L u ed ike , w h o, aft er ob se rv in g C .S., note d that the chi l d app ear ed happ y a n d h ea l thy. Later th at day, Luedike cal l ed Tere sa, wh o al so expla i ned th e i nc i den t. Lue di k e as k ed Te r es a to t ak e C. S
. t o the ho s pi t a lt o h a v e the b r ui s e s e xa mi ne d. T ha te v e ni ng, th e Siliv en s t oo k C .S. t o th e e m er ge n c y ro om atR eid H os p ita l. Lu edi ke obt ai ned a co py ofthe em er gency r oo m d octor’s m e d ic a l rep ort on Janu ary 23. T he report di d no t r ea cha ny c o nc l us i o n a s to the cau se o fthe brui ses . A l so on that day, Luedike e- m ai led photo

g r a p h s o f C .S.’s b ru ise s t ak en by th e p olic e a n d th e R eid4 N o. 10

- 2701 H os p ita l m ed ica l rep or t t o D r . T o n i L as ke y a t t h e c h ild ab u se c lin ic at Rile y H os p ita l in In d ian ap olis
. T h e f o ll o wi ngda y, Dr
. La sk eyr es po nde d, o pining th atthe br ui se s wer e co ns i st en t wi tha n ad ult f o r cibl y g r ab bing C
. S
. ’ s a r m. Lue di k e an d the po l i ce offi ce r a ss i g ne d t o the case , Detect i ve M i chaelBri tt, i n tervi ew ed W oo ds on J anuary2 3. W oo ds to l d them thatshe did notgr ab C. S
. ’ s ar m , a nd d id no t kno w ho w he ha d g o tt enthe brui ses . W oo ds had no cr i m i nalhi sto ryo r com pla i nts a g a i ns th e r p r e v i o us l y . Du r i ngthe i nt er vi e w, Wo o ds p rovide d Lu ed ike w ith th e nam es an d p hon e nu m bers o fthe p a r e nt s o fo the r c hi l dr e n i n he r da y c a r e . On J anuary 25 , Luedike spok e wi t h o ne o ftho se parents, w h o sta ted thatW oo ds to ok goo d care o fher chi l d and that sh e had neverhad any probl em s with W ood s in the n ine years th at sh e had know n h er. On Januar y 2 4, Luedike o btained a copy o fa 2003 D C S file d es c rib in g a “s u b st an tia te d ” re p or t o f ch ild ab us e i nv ol v i ngMar ka nd h i s the n- fi ft e e n- y e a r - o l d s t e pd au gh te r. T h e D C S u se s t h e t er m “s u b st an tia te d ” in re fer en c e t o a ch ild ab u se rep or t t o m ea n t h at th e in ve st igat i on uncove re d fa cts that “pro vi de a pr eponderan ce o fe vi dence thatc hi l d ab us e . . . h a s o c c ur r e d. ” Ind
. Co de § 3 1- 9- 2- 123. That fi l e co ntai ned p ictur es showing si gni fi cant brui si ng to the gi rl ’ s f ace, neck, and back
. O n Jan ua ry 24 or 25, Lu ed ike c o n t acte d Teres a at w ork to askwh ethershe an d M ar k would be wil l i ng to tak e pol ygr aph test s. Ter esa ag re ed to subm i t t o a pol ygr aph, and sai d she would as k M ar k i fhe woul d asN o. 10

- 2701 5

w el l
. Laterthatday, M ar k l eft a m ess age f orLuedike in w h ich he a gr eed to a pol ygr aph, o n the condi ti on th atW o o ds an d he r husband a l so b e te st ed. Acco r di ng to L ue d ike, i n th e m essag e, M ark sou nd ed “very angry an d alm os t t h re at en in g.” That afternoon, Luedike m et w ith Suttl e, H el en S hult z (Lu ed ike’s su p ervisor), and A aron La w son ( th e staff att or ney fo r the W ayne County DC S) to di scuss her i nvest i gat ion . Luedik e e xplained that C.S
. had ( l i kel y) been i nj ured byan a du l t a nd that, bec ause the pa re n ts ha d no t be enr uled ou t as ha vingc au se d the i nj ur i es , s he c o u l d n o ts a y th a tC
. S
. w a s s a fe a th o me . L u e d i k e r e c o mm en ded th atC. S
. b e r emov ed fr o m the ho m e, a nd the othe rs ag re ed. S ut tle deter m i ned that ther e was not e no ugh t i me t o o b t a i n a c o ur to r de r b e f o r e the we e k e nd , a n d a u th o r i z e d L u e d i k e to r e mo v e C
. S
. fr o m th e h o me pur su an t to a n e m er g en cyde te nt i o n. Lu edi ke conta cted the W ayne C ounty Sher i ff’ s Depart

m ent, and thr ee orf our W ayne C ou n ty sher i ff s’ deputie s acco m panie d her to the Si l i vens’ hom e. M ar k was hom e w ith C. S
. Lue di k e to l d M ar ktha t DCS was g o i ng to tak e C. S. i nto prot ec tiv e cust ody. M ar k r efused to let L ue d ike into th e hom e or to all ow he r to ta k e C
. S. H e ca lled T er esa, wh o w as on herway hom e fro m w or k. Eventual l y, Ter esa spok e with S u tt l e, wh o agr eed to al l o w Te r e s a t o t a k e C. S
. t o h i s g r a nd mothe r ’ s h o us e i n Ohio i n l i eu o f p utti ng C. S. i n f ost ercar e. Luedike w ro te up a safetypl an detai l i ng the a rr angem ent, wh i ch the S i l i vens si gned. Ter esa and C. S. then drove to Oh i o , wh e r e the y s t a y e d fo r the we e k e nd
.6 N o. 10

- 2701 On M onday, J anuary28 , 2 00 8, a detenti on hea ring was h eld , aft er w h ich th e j u d ge c on c lu d ed th at n o p r o b a b le cause exi ste d at that tim e t o bel i eve thatC. S. ’ s physi cal h ea lth w as se rio u sly en d an ge re d , as t h e a p p lica b le st at u te req u ire s. See Ind
. Code §§ 31- 34- 1- 2( a) , 3 1- 34- 2- 3( a) ( 1) ( author i zi ng ca sework er s t o tak e chi l dren i nto cus to dy wher e th er e is p r o babl e ca us e to b el i ev e th e c h ild ’s p h ys i c al or m en ta l co n d itio n w ill be s er iou sly i m pai re d orse ri ou sly e nd anger ed i fthe chi l d i s no t i m m edi at ely t ak eni nt o c us to dy)
. The r efo r e, the S i l i ve ns w er e p er m itt ed to ta ke C .S. ho m e w ith t h e m . T h e in ve st igat i on was cl ose d on M ar c h 18, 20 08, and no c harg es w er e br ought. The S i l i ve ns fi l ed su i t ag ai nstLue di k e, S ut tl e, a nd the I ndi an a DCS i n Indi an a st at e co ur t, a l l eg i ngc onst i tu
ti onaland sta te l aw vi ol ati ons. A fterdefendants r e m o v ed the ac tion to federa l cou rt, the d istri ct cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofdefendants as to the federa l cl ai m s. The cour t al so denie d the Silive n s’ cr o ss - m o ti o n fo r s um m ar y j udg m en t. W i thr es p ectt o the I nd i ana DCS, the cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the g ro und thatthe DC S i s no t a “per son” as defi ned by § 1 983, such that the S i l ive n s’ cl ai m s f ai l ed as a m att er o fl aw. The S i l i ve ns do no t appe alth at rul i ng . The c o ur tf o un d tha tS ut t l e a nd Lu e di k e we r e e nt i t l e d t o sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the federa lcl ai m s on qu al i fi ed i m m unity g ro und s. The di str i ct c ourtel ecte d to bypass the fi rs t pr ong o f the tw o- part quali fi ed i m m unity an aly si s se t forth in Saucierv. Ka tz , 533 U
. S. 194 (2001), as i s per m i ss ibl e unde r Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 55 5 U.S
. 22 3 ( 2 0 0 9 )
. Th e r e f o r e , the c o ur t di d no t de c i de whe the r de-N o. 10

- 2701 7 fendants’ co nd uct vi ol ate d th e S i l i vens’ co nsti tuti onal r i g ht s. I ns te ad, th e co ur t went di r ec tly to the s ec o nd p ro n g a n d co n c l u d ed th at th e c on st itu tio n al rig h ts alleg ed ly v iola te d w er e n ot“c lea rly es ta b lish ed ” in J anuary20 08. Final l y, the dist ri ct c ourtdecl i ned to exer ci se supp l em entalj uri sdic tion overthe Si l i vens’ re m ai ni ng st ate l aw cl ai m s, wh i ch i t r em and ed t o sta te cour t. S ubsequentl y, the Si l i vens fi l ed a m oti on t o al ter or a men d j ud g men t ; the di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d tha t m ot i o n. T hi s t i mel y a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n c r o s s - mot i o ns f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , const rui ng al li nfe re nces i n f avo r ofthe partyag ai nst whom the m oti on under c on sid er at ion is m ad e. Tegt m e i e rv. M i dwe s t O pe r at i ng Eng’ rs Pe ns i o n Trust Fun d, 390 F.3d 104 0, 1045 ( 7th Cir. 20 04 )
. S um m ar y j udg m en t i s p r o perwhenthe r e i s no ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial fa c t a n d th e m ov in g p ar ty is en ti tl ed to j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw. F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c ); A nders on v. Libe rty L o bby Inc. , 47 7 U.S
. 24 2, 25 5 ( 1986 )
. W e si m i l ar l y re vi ew a dist ri ct cour t’s q u al i fi ed i m m u n ity d et er m in at ion d e n ov o. S p a r i n g v . Vi l l ag eof O l ym pi a F i e l ds , 266 F.3d 684 , 688 (7th C ir. 2001). The do ct r i ne o fqua l i fi ed i m m uni tyi ns ul at es g o ve r nm ent a cto rs fro m l i abi l i ty f orci vi ldam age s when their con d uc t d oes not viol ate clearly estab li sh ed statu tory orco n st itu ti onalr i ghts ofwh i ch a re aso nabl e per son w ou ld h av e b ee n aw ar e. Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 555 U
. S. 22 3, 1 29 S
. Ct. 8 08 , 8 15 ( 20 09 )
. In o th erwor ds, the8 N o. 10

- 2701 doctr i ne pro tect s publ i c o ffi ci al s “ w h o act i n w ays they reaso nabl y b el i eve to be l aw ful, ” a nd thus l eave s “ am p le ro om f orm i sta ken j ud gm ents. ” Whe e l e rv. La wson , 53 9 F.3d 629 , 639 (7th C ir. 2008) (ci tations om itted ). Qu al i fi ed i m m unity c l ai m s pre sent tw o questi ons: ( 1 ) wh e the r the p l a i nt i ff’ s a l l e g a t i o ns ma k e o uta de pr i va ti o n o fa c o ns ti tu ti o na lri g ht, a nd ( 2) whethe r the r i g hta t i ss ue was c l ea r l y e stab l i sh ed atthe t i m e o fthe d efe n d an t’s alleg ed m isc on d u c t. Pearson, 12 9 S
. Ct. at81 5. C ou rt s a re free “t o e x er c ise th eir so u n d d isc re tio n in d e c i d i n gw h i c h o fth e t wo p r o n g s o fth e qua l i f i e d i mm unity a nal ys is sh oul d be a dd re sse d fi rs t in l i ght o f the c i rcum sta nces i n the parti cul arcas e a t hand. ” Id. at 818. U nl i ke the di str i ct c ourt, we begin w i th the fi rs t pr o n g, wh i c h we fi n d t o b e d i s p o s i t i v e a s t o e a c h o ft he Siliv en s’ c on st itu tio n al c laim s. See Wi l li am s v. Fl e m i ng, 597 F
. 3 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( we ma y a ffi r m t he j ud gm ent of the dist ri ct cour t on any gr ound s up ported in th e record ).

A . F ou rt h A m en d m en t C laim T he Si li ven s fi rst claim that de fend an ts v io late d C.S. ’s Fo u rt hA m en d m en t rig h t t o b e fre e fro m u n re as on ab le sei zure s when they c om pel l ed Tere sa to re m ove the boy fr o m hi s ho m e. W i thres p ec t to F o ur thAm en dm en t c laim s a ss e r t e d “[i]n th e c on te x t o f rem ov in g a ch ild from his hom e an d fam il y,” w e hav e held that “a seizure is re as on ab le if it is p u rs u an t t o a c ou rtord er , i f it is supp or ted bypro babl e ca use, or ifi t i s j usti fi ed by ex igent circu m stan ces, m ean in g that state offi cersN o. 10

- 2701 9

‘ have re aso n to bel i eve that l i fe or l i m b is in i m m edi ate j eopar dy. ’ ” B rokaw v. M er ce r C ounty, 23 5 F
. 3d 1000 , 10 10 (7th C ir. 2000) (ci tations om itted ). A s an initialm att e r , w e m us t ad d ress w he th er C.S. w as sei zed f or pu rpos es of the Fourth A m endm ent. Ge ne r a l l y, a p e r s o n ha s b e e n s ei zed f o r F o ur th Am e nd

men t pu r p o s e s “ o n l y i f, i n v i e w o fa l lo fth e c i r c u msta nces surr ounding the in c i dent, a re aso nabl e per son w oul d have be l i eve d that he was not fre e t o l ea ve .” B entz v. C ity of Kendallvil le, 5 7 7 F
. 3 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 09) (citations om itted ). “D eterm ining w he th er a se izure has occur re d i s a hi ghl y f act-bound i nquir y. ” U nited Sta tes v. T yler, 5 12 F.3d 405, 4 10 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Am o ngthe re l evantf acto rs to be consi dered i s “ coe rci ve conduct on th e pa r t o f the po l i c e tha t i nd i c a t e s c o o pe r a t i o n i s r equir ed. ” Id. Defe nd ants conte nd thatno sei zure to ok pla ce b ecause C.S
. was n ot pla ced i n f ost ercar e. Rather, defendants p erm itted his m oth e r to take him to his grand m oth er’s h ou se and to r em ai n ther e with hi m . That C. S. was ne ver out of his m oth e r’s com p an y certainly un d erm in es th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t c laim . T h a ts aid , th er e is evi dence i nd i cating tha t defen d an ts coe rce d Teres a in to ta kin g C .S. to O h io b y t h re at e n i n g t o p lac e h im i n fo st erc ar e i fs he di d no t co o per at e. In the c o nt ex t ofFo u rt h A m en d m en t sei zure s invol vi ng o ffi ci al coercion, w e ha ve not ed th at “[a] th reat bec o m e s m ore coe rci ve as the c osto fnon- com pli ance incre ase s r el ati ve to the c osto fco m pli ance. ” Ker nats v. O ’Su ll i van , 35 F. 3d 1171 , 11 79 ( 7th C ir. 1 994)
. H er e, i t i s di ffi cul t t o10 N o. 10

- 2701

T he Silive ns ar g u e tha t, after ou r d e c i si o n inM i chae l C
. v. 1 G re sba ch , 52 6 F
. 3d 1 00 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) , e i the r a c ou rt or der or exig en t cir c u m stan ces are requ ired , an d tha t pr ob ab le cau se i s i ns uffi c i en t
. W e di s agr ee . I n Mi c h a e l C. , we s t ate d that“[ t ] he r e q u i r e me n tth a ta c h i l d we l f a r e wo r k e r o b t a i n th e e q u i val en t ofa warrant bef ore c ond ucti n g a s earc h ( absent exi gent c ir

c um s t anc es ) c an effec t i vel y p rot ec tc hi l dre n, withoutha vi ng to excuse w orkers from obtaini ng ad vance j ud ic ial app roval ofs e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur es . . . . Be c a us e Gr e s ba c h c on duc t e d a se a rc h o f e a c h ch ild o n p ri v a te p ro p er ty w ith o u t c o n se n t, a warr antor pr obabl e cau se, or e xi ge ntc i rc um s t anc es , I an and (co n tin u ed ...) ove rs tat e the co st ofnon-c om pli ance

— l osing cust ody o f o ne ’ s c hi l d, e v e n t e mpo r a r i l y . Bu t we ne e d no t dec i de whet he r C
. S
. wa s s e i z e d wi th i n th e me a n i n go fthe Four th A m endm ent. Duri ng the Jan u ary 2 8 dete nti on hear i ng, b ot h t he DC S and the pre si ding j ud ge ass um ed that the e vents o fJ an u ar y 25 const i tuted an e m er gency det en ti o n. S pec i fi ca l l y, Lue di k e st at ed atthe h ea r i ng th at C .S. w as “d et ain ed Frid ay , Jan u ar y 2 [ 5 ] t h , ap p ro x im at ely fi ve p. m . , ” an d the j udg e no te d tha t th e he ar i ng w as b ein g h el d w i thi n 48 hours ofthe re m ova las re q u ire d by Ind ian a la w . W e t oo w ill pr oc ee d as if ther e was an em er gencydetent i on, wh i ch co nsti tutes a sei zure f orpurposes o fthe Four th A m endm ent. A ssum i ng the re was a s ei zure , the questi on i s whether defe nd ants acte d rea sonab ly. Because defe nd ants acte d wi th o uta c ou r t o r der, the r emov alo fC. S
. c anb e co nsid er ed rea so n ab le on ly if d efe n d an ts h ad p r ob ab le c a us e o r i fe xi g en tc i r c ums t a nc e s e xi s t e d. We c o nc l ud e 1N o. 10

- 2701 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 A le xi s’ s Fou rth A m endm ent ri ghts to be fre e fro m unreas o n a b l e s ea r c h e s we r e v i o l a t e d. ” 5 2 6 F
. 3 d a t1 0 1 6
. Whi l e we om it t ed m en t i on ofpr obabl e c aus e i n the fi rs tquo t ed s en tenc e, w e i ncluded i t i n the se cond. W e c annot agree that the i ni t i al om i s s i on i m pl i c i t l y ove rtur ne d part ofthe ho l di ng i n Broka w . th at p robab le cause exist e d to rem ove C
. S. from M ark’s cus to dy, s uchtha t th er e was n o F o ur thAm en dm en t vi o l at i o n. The I nd i ana Code pro vi des thata “chi l d m ay be tak en i nto custo dy by a . . . cas ew or keract i ng with proba

bl e ca use t o bel i eve the chi l d i s a chi l d in n eed o f ser vi ces if
. . . i t a pp ear s that the chi l d’s physi calo r m en ta l co n d itio n w ill be s er iou sly im p air ed or s er iou sly endanger ed i fthe chi l d i s no t i m m edi ate l y t ak en i nto cu s t o d y . ” I n d
. C o d e § 3 1

- 3 4

- 2

- 3 ( a ) ( 1 )
. A c h i l d i s co nside red to be “in need of services” i f “th e ch il d ’s phy si ca l or m en ta lhe al thi s se r i o us l y e nda ng er ed due to i nj ury by the a ct o r om i ssi on of the chi l d’s parent, guar dian, o r custo dian. ” Id. § 3 1- 34

- 1- 2( a). T he pe r tine nt in q u iry , th en , i s w h et h er d efe n d an ts h ad p ro b ab le caus e t o b e l i e v e tha t C. S
. ’ s ph y s i c a l he a l th wo ul d be se riou sly en d an ge re d if h e w as n otim m ed iat ely re m ove d fr om hi s f ather ’ s cust ody. T h e p r o b a b le c au se an aly sis is an ob j ec tiv e o n e. See Whren v. U nited Sta tes, 5 17 U. S
. 8 06 , 8 13 ( 19 96 )
. Ourf o cus i s o n th e f acts and ci rcum sta nces known to defendants at th e tim e the y d ecid ed to rem ove C
. S. , and w he th er a12 N o. 10

- 2701 pr ude ntc as ewo r k er( m ea ni ngone ofr ea so nabl e ca uti on) co uld have bel i eve d that C. S. f aced an im m edi ate th re at of ab u se ba se d on th os e fa c ts
. Wagne rv. Was hi ngt on C ounty, 4 93 F
. 3d 83 3, 8 36 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( d esc r ibing pr o b ab l e c a u s e i n th e c o n t e x to fa n a r r e s t )
. T h e d e fe ndan ts ’ “ su bj ecti ve b el i ef s ar e l ar g ely i r r el ev an t to the probabl e ca use inquir y. ” U nited S ta tes v. G arci a-G arci a , 2011 W L 20615 3, at *3 ( 7th Cir. J an . 25, 2011 ). He r e , de fe nd a nt s kne w tha tthe r e wa s p hy s i cal evid en ce of ab us e (corrob orated b y D r. La skey’s op inion), th at M ar k h ad ac c e s s t o C .S. d u rin g t h e t im efr am e in w hich the inj uries m ight ha ve occ urred , and that there w as a pri orsubst anti ate d repor t o fchild abuse ag ai nst M ar k. W e c onclude thattho se f acts were suffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt a prudent case w or keri n bel i evi ng tha t C. S. was in d anger . A s the S i l i vens note , the evi dence w as f ar fr o m c o nc l us iv e as t o ho w C. S
. was i nj ur ed, a nd w hetherM ar k was i nvol ved. But, wh i le pr obab l e ca use r equi r es mor e than bar e su spi ci o n, i t do es no t demand probabi l i ty, o r “eve n a s how i ng tha t the officer ’ s be l i ef i s m or e l i kel y tr ue than fals e.” Woods v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 23 4 F.3 d 979, 99 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( i nter nalci tat i ons om i tted)
. M or eo ver, pro babl e ca use “ need not be b ase d on evi dence suffi ci ent t o su p p or t aco nvi cti on. ” Id. ( ci tat i on om itted ). W e no te that L u ed ike st ate d i n herdeposi ti on that s he di d notbeli eve C
. S. w as in i m m inen t d an ger. R ath er, sh e s im p ly “ c ou ld n ’t s ay th at h e w as co m p let ely sa fe.” Be c a us e p r o b abl e c a us e i s j ud g e d b y a n o bj e c t i v e s t a nd

ar d , L u ed ike ’s “ su bj ec tiv e b elie fa s t o th e le ga l ba sisN o. 10

- 2701 13 f or[ the d et en tio n] i s i rr el evant
. ” P o tts v. C ityof La fa yette, I nd
. , 12 1 F
. 3d 1106 , 11 13 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. A r eas onab le case w or keri n Lued i ke’ s pos i ti on co uld have co ncl ud ed th a tC
. S
. wa s i n i mmi n e n td a n g e r . T h e r e f o r e , we c o ncl ud e that defendants’ acti ons w er e obj ecti vel y r easonab l e, and did notvi ol ate the Four th A m endm ent. O u r d et er m in at ion of re as on ab len es s is influ en c ed , in l ar ge part, bythe f act that C.S
. r em ai ned w i th hi s m othe r at al lr el evantti m es. Reas onabl eness under the Fo urth Am en dm en t i s “mea su r ed i n l i g hto fthe t o ta l i tyo fthe ci rcum sta nces an d deter m i ned by ba l anci ng the degr ee to whi cha c ha l l en g ed ac ti o n int r ude s o n a n indi vi du al’s pri vacyand the degre e t o w hi ch the acti on prom ote s a le giti m ate go ver nm ent inter est
. ” G reen v. B utler, 42 0 F. 3d 689, 694 ( 7th Cir . 200 5); see also Bel l v. Wol f i s h, 44 1 U. S. 5 2 0 , 5 5 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( i n c o nd uc t i ngthe F o ur th Am e nd

men tb a l a nc i ngt e s t, “ [ c ] o ur t s mus tc o ns i der t he s c o pe ofthe parti cul ari ntrusi on . . . ”)
. H er e, defendants o pted f ora l ess i ntrusi ve i nter fer ence w i th C. S. ’s ri ghts by pe r mi t t i ngh i m t o r e mai n wi th hi s mo the r, i ns tea d ofta ki ng him in to sta te custo dy. W e do not i ntend to chara cter i ze the deg re e o fi nter fer ence as m i n im al, f ar fro m i t. B u t w e be l i eve the sta te’ s l egi ti m ate i nter est i n protect i ngc hi l dr enwar r an te d tha t l es se r de g r ee o fi ntr usi on in thi s ca se.
B. S u b stan ti ve D u e P rocess Claim The Si l i vens al so prese nt a substa nti ve du e pr oce ss cl ai m . As we noted i n Broka w , “[ t] he S up re m e Cour t has l o ngr ec o g ni ze d as a c o m po ne nto fs ubs ta nt i ve due14 N o. 10

- 2701 proce ss t h e ri ght t o f am i l i alr el ati ons. ” 2 35 F. 3d at 1018
. T ha t fun d a m e nt al r ight en com p asses “the ri gh t of a m an an d w om an to m ar ry , an d t o b e ar an d rais e t h eir ch i l dr en, ” as wel la s “the r i g hto fa c hi l d t o b e ra ise d a nd nurture d by hi s par ents. ” D oe v. Heck, 327 F. 3d 492, 51 7- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) (cit ati ons om i tte d). The co nsti tuti onal ri ght t o f am i l ial in te gr i ty i s no t abso l ute; r ather, i t m ust be b al an ce d ag ains t th e st at e’ s i nt er es t i n pr o te ct i ng c h ild re n from ab u se . Broka w , 2 35 F
. 3d at1019. To m ai ntai n the appropri ate bal ance, we req u ire thatcas ew or ker s hav e “ evid en c e to supp or t a ‘ re aso nabl e s uspici on’ o fpast ori m m in en t abuse” bef or e they m ay tak e a ch ild int o p ro te c tiv e c u st od y. Ter ry v . Ri ch ar ds on , 34 6 F. 3d 781, 78 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. “A re asonabl e s uspici on re q u ire s m or e t h an a h u n c h bu t le s s t h an p ro b ab le cause. ” U nite d State s v. O g le sb y, 597 F.3d 891 , 894 (7th C ir. 2010 ) (citations an d i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). He r e , d e fe n d a n t s ’ s u s p i c i o n o fp a s ta n d p o s s ib l e i mm i ne nta bu se byM ar kwas b as ed o n de fi ni te a nd ar ti cul abl e e vi dence

— nam el y, Dr. Laskey ’ s opi ni on that C.S
. ’ s inj u rie s were caused byan a du l t using eno ugh f orce to i nj ure hi m , and the re cor d ofa past a ccusati on ofabuse ag ai nst M ar k. A bove , we concl ud ed that that ev id en c e w as su fficie n t t o e s t a b l ish p ro b ab le c au se . I t f o l l o ws th at i t m us t al so be su ffi ci en t to sa ti sfy the l ess dem anding re aso nabl e s uspici on s tandard. There

f o r e, we ca n fi nd no s ubs ta nt i ve due pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n. A gain, ou r an alysis is infl ue nc ed by th e fact th a t C
. S. r e ma i n e d wi th h i s mo th e r . Inl i g h to fth e f a c t s kn o wn to d efend an ts, th e use of state action t o prote ct C
. S.N o. 10

- 2701 15 fro m hi s f atherwas re aso nabl e. There f or e, defendants’ d ecision to tem p oraril y rem ove C
. S. from his fa t h er’s c u st od y w as w a r r a n te d by th e s ta te ’s in te re st in p rot e c ting ch il d ren from abu se. W he th er the sta te’s i nt er es t woul d ha ve j us ti fi ed a g r ea te r i nt r us iono n the Siliven s’ ri gh t to f am il iali nt egrity, suc h as p lacing C
. S. i n fos te r c ar e, i s f arfro m cl ear . But w e nee d not tak e that u p a t thi s t i m e. H er e, i t was r eas onabl e for defe nd ants to suspect possibl e abuse b y M ar k, and defen dan ts’ i nt r us i o n o n the S i l i ve ns ’ c o ns ti tu ti o na lr i g ht to f ami l i ali nt eg r i tywas no g r ea te r tha n was ne ce ss ar y to ad d re ss th at d an g e r . See Wa llis v. Sp encer, 20 2 F
. 3d 1126 , 11 40- 41 ( 9th Ci r. 20 00) ( i n anal yz ing due pro cess cl ai m a r i singo uto fc hi l d abuse inve st i g at i o n, no ting that re aso nabl eness o f“intrusi on o n a c hi l d’s protecte d pri vacyand sec u rity i nter est s” depend s o n w hether i ntrusi on i s “ suffi ci entl y . . . ‘ ci rcum scr ibed by the e xi gency th at j us tified’ th e C ity’s intru sion into th e c h ild ren’s li ves” ) (citation om itted ).
C . P roced u ral D u e P rocess Claim Fi nal l y, the Si l i vens al l ege a proce du ra ldue proc ess c l a i m, a s s e r t i n g th a t th e r e mo v a l o f C
. S
. fr o m the h o me wi th o uta he ar i ngv iol at ed th e due pr o ce ss c l au se o fthe Four tee nth A m endm ent. In this ci rcui t, due proc ess re qu i r e s , a t a mi ni mum, tha t g o v e r nme nt a l o ffi c i a l s “no t re m ove a chi l d fr om hi s ho m e wit h ou t a n i nvest i gat i on and pre- depri vati on hea ring r es ulti ng in a c ourto rdero f re m ova l, abs ent ex i gent ci rcum sta nces. ” Broka w , 23 5 F. 3d at 1020
.16 N o. 10

- 2701 I n the conte xt o fthe Fo u rt h A m endm ent, the questi on w hetherexi gent ci rcum sta nces j usti fi ed a warrantl ess se ar c h is an ob j ec t i v e in q u iry
. See Brigham City, U t ah v
. Stu a rt, 547U .S. 39 8 (2 00 6); U ni t e d Sta tes v. Ri ch ar ds on , 20 8 F
. 3 d 6 2 6 , 6 2 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Wi th r e s pe c tto war r an tl es s se ar ch es , we ha ve he l d tha t “the g o ver nmen tmus te s t ab l i s h tha tthe c i r c ums t a nc e s a s they a ppeare d at the m om ent o fentry would l ead a re aso nabl e, experi enced l aw enf or cem ent o ffi certo bel i eve that so m eone i nsi de the house, apart m ent, or hote l room requir ed i m m edi ate as si sta nce. ” Ric har ds on , 20 8 F
. 3d at 629 ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). In the conte xt o fr em oving a c h ild from h is h om e, d efe n d an ts m u st sh ow th at, in l i ght o fthe f acts and ci rcum sta nces known to defendants at t h e ti m e o fthe re m ova ldeci si on, r eas onabl e, exper ien c ed ca se w or ke rs w ou ld h av e b elie ve d th a t th e c h ild w as i n i m m edi ate physi cald an ge r i n the hom e. A s di scussed ab ove , we fi nd thata reaso nabl e ca sework er w oul d have dra w n that concl usi on i n thi s ca se base d on the physi cal ev idence o fabuse , co m bi ned w i th the pri or a c c us a t i o n ofab us e a g a i ns tMar k
. Mo r e o v e r, the s c o pe ofthe re m ova lwas l i m i ted to the exi gencythatj usti fi ed i t, in that C. S. was re m ove d fr om hi s f ather ’ s cust ody o nl y.

I I I . Concl usio n W e a re notunsym patheti c to the Si l i vens. One can o nl y i m ag i ne the i r fr us tr at i o n whe n, a fte r r epo r ti ng p ot en tia l ab u se of th eir ch ild by a th ird p ar ty , th e in ve st ig at i o n c ame to fo cus o n the m . Howev er, f o r the r ea so ns state d above, w e con c lu d e tha t the pa rticular i nt er-N o. 10

- 2701 17 fer ence w i th the S i l i vens’ co nsti tuti onalr i ghts that occ u r r e d h e r e wa s r e a s o n ab l e i n v i e w o f th e f a c ts k no wn by defe nd ants an d the sta te’ s s tr ong i nter esti n protect i ng chi l dren fro m abuse
. Fo r the for ego i ng r eas ons, w e A FFIRM .

3- 16- 11