Opinion ID: 800656
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Merits of the Fourth Amendment Unlawful Seizure Claim

Text: Because we conclude here that Woo is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, at least on this record, the remaining question is whether Woo is entitled to summary judgment on the merits. The district court assumed that a seizure of a child without a court order or parental consent is constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment only if there are exigent circumstances. See Southerland II, 521 F.Supp.2d at 234 n. 29. It concluded that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Southerland Children, a reasonable juror could determine that the circumstances Woo encountered did not demonstrate an imminent danger to the children's life or limb. Id. As our discussion here makes clear, however, this may not be the standard that should apply in deciding the merits of the Children's Fourth Amendment seizure claim. The district court should reconsider the merits-questionon an expanded record if the court deems that appropriatecognizant of the uncertainty in the legal landscape. The district court may need to decide, in the first instance, what standard should apply, but it may not. For example, if the court determines that under either standard the Southerland children can establish that the circumstances in the home did not justify the seizure as a matter of law, then it need not decide whether the probable cause or exigent circumstances standard is applicable.