Opinion ID: 62905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Seizing the Children from School and at the YMCA

Text: Next, Travis, Alexis, and Marcus contend on appeal that the district court failed to address their arguments that various defendants violated the Fourth Amendment when those defendants seized them from their schools and the YMCA without a court order. While the district court ruled that the YMCA seizure was reasonable, it does not appear that the district court specifically considered the seizures from the schools. We will first analyze the claims regarding taking the children from school and then the claim regarding speaking to the children at the YMCA.
Travis and Alexis claim that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when (1) Davis removed Travis from his school on February 11, 2000, and took him to the CAC for an interview and (2) Sterns removed Alexis from her school on January 25, 2001, and took her to the CAC for an interview. [20] As with the claim based on the seizure of the children from their home, the Fourth Amendment governs our analysis of this claim. A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, we have little trouble concluding that Travis and Alexis were seized when they were removed from their school by TDPRS employees. Thus, the next question is whether the seizures were unreasonable. In assessing the reasonableness of a seizure, we are to balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests that justify the intrusion. Place, 462 U.S. at 703, 103 S.Ct. 2637. The Gateses would have us adopt an exigent circumstances standard similar to the one employed when children are seized from their homes for the purposes of taking them into state custody. Such a blanket rule, however, fails to account for the differences in the nature and quality of the intrusion. Temporarily seizing a child from a public school in order to interview him in a safe place is decidedly different than seizing a child from his home for the purpose of removing him from allegedly abusive parents. To begin with, the rights of children to freely move about, especially within a public school, are not as extensive as adults' rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that Fourth Amendment rights of children are different in public schools than elsewhere; the `reasonableness' inquiry cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. Vernonia Sch. Dist., 515 U.S. at 656, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Thus, while the Fourth Amendment is not non-existent, students have a lesser expectation of privacy. See id. at 656-57, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Further, unemancipated minors lack the right to come and go at will, remaining subject to the control of their guardians or parents. Id. at 654, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Consequently, seizing a child from a public school is a lesser intrusion into the freedoms the child would otherwise enjoy, as those freedoms have already been limited. Next, the nature and scope of the intrusion into the child's rights is relatively small. The seizures in this case were for the purpose of interviewing the children for their own protection. As described above, the CAC was created with the purpose of reducing trauma to the possible victims of child abuse by coordinating child abuse investigations among the various branches of government. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 264.403, 264.405. Although claiming that the seizure of a child is for his benefit will not automatically justify a seizure, it is a factor that should be taken into account. Cases from other circuits do not provide a clear rule as to what constitutional standard should be used, but they do indicate that the test should be flexible enough to account for the unique interests involved in child abuse investigations. The Second Circuit has employed an exigent circumstances analysis to determine whether removing a child from school in order to undergo a physical exam for evidence of sexual abuse is constitutional. Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 605. The court indicated, though, that an exigent circumstances analysis might not always be appropriate in the child examination context; however, the court did not elaborate as to what situations might call for a lower standard. Id. at 604. The Seventh Circuit, in a public school setting, has held that searches of children's bodies for evidence of physical abuse need only meet a reasonableness standard. Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893, 902-03 (7th Cir.1986) (noting the state's very special responsibility to the children of the community). [21] Given the differences in the freedoms enjoyed by children inside a public school, the nature and scope of the seizures at issue, and the need to promptly investigate and act upon allegations of child abuse, we believe an exigent circumstances analysis sets too high a threshold for the state to overcome when investigating allegations of child abuse. However, removing a child from a public school solely on the basis of an anonymous report is not a constitutional solution either. The answer lies somewhere in between. We return to traditional Fourth Amendment law. Here, the TDPRS employees were brought to the schools on the basis of anonymous tips made to a child abuse hotline. Just as an anonymous tip, standing alone, is rarely sufficient to provide probable cause for a warrant, Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104, 1110 (5th Cir. 2006), an anonymous tip regarding child abuse will rarely be sufficient to justify the seizure of a child. However, anonymous tips that have been independently corroborated by government officials may provide sufficient grounds to seize a child. See United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855, 863 (5th Cir.2007) (noting that anonymous tips that have been corroborated may provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop). Thus, before seizing a child on the basis of an anonymous tip, TDPRS must sufficiently corroborate the tip by initiating its own investigation. This might involve a preliminary interview of the child, his teachers, or peers, or perhaps a visual inspection of any injuries that can be seen without the removal of the child's clothing. Taking all of the above precedent into account, we hold that before a social worker can remove a child from a public school for the purpose of interviewing him in a central location without a court order, the social worker must have a reasonable belief that the child has been abused and probably will suffer further abuse upon his return home at the end of the school day. [22] This reasonable belief must be based on first-hand observations of TDPRS employees, [23] unless the anonymous report shows significant indicia of reliability. As with removing a child from the home, this is a totality of the circumstances analysis that should consider all of the facts of which the social worker is aware. It may be, too, that the child is more comfortable being interviewed at his school than at a strange location, so a social worker should take into account any of the child's express desires. Applying that standard here, both seizures violated the Fourth Amendment. Beginning with Travis, at the time Davis seized Travis from the school, the only information that she had corroborated was the existence of the baggie full of wrappers. She also observed two small marks on Travis's hand and face, but there is no indication that she asked Travis how he had received the marks. Although the anonymous reporter made allegations of emotional abuse, the allegations are void of information that would indicate a likelihood of physical abuse were Travis to return home, and Davis did not uncover any such evidence before seizing Travis. Therefore, Davis could not have had a reasonable belief that Travis had been or likely would be abused at his home. Similarly, the anonymous report regarding Alexis indicated that she had a bruise and had, at one point, stated that her father had given it to her. Polasek ordered Sterns to pick up Alexis from her school on the basis of the anonymous report alone. Prior to removing Alexis, Sterns confirmed the existence of the bruise, but made no attempt to discover its origin before removing Alexis from school. Thus, again, the TDPRS employees did not have sufficient evidence to warrant seizing Alexis from school without a court order. Because Travis and Alexis have stated a claim for the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, we must now consider whether those rights were clearly established at the time the violations occurred. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. As with some of the other claims in this case, the law in this area was simply not clearly established at the time of the incidents at issue. This court has never before set out a Fourth Amendment standard for this type of seizure, and the other circuit courts have either been silent or reached ambiguous conclusions on this issue. It would not be reasonable to expect the TDPRS employees in this case to comply with a constitutional standard that we have not articulated until today. Consequently, because the law regarding seizing children from school for the purpose of interviewing them without a court order was not clearly established at the time Travis and Alexis were seized, the TDPRS individuals involved are entitled to qualified immunity.
Alexis and Marcus also argue that several Fort Bend deputies violated their Fourth Amendment rights when they moved Alexis and Marcus into a separate room at the YMCA in order to interview them about allegations of abuse. We agree with the district court that this seizure was reasonable. The intrusion was minor (simply being moved to a separate room) and of short duration. The children were questioned about the allegations and released. This was very similar to an investigatory detention, as approved in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), in that it was supported by reasonable suspicion and was no more intrusive than necessary. There is nothing to suggest that the Fort Bend deputies stepped outside their constitutional bounds.