Opinion ID: 1266304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The district court erred by applying the wrong standard in determining whether Law Center had established probable cause.

Text: The Development Disabilities Act grants a Protection and Advocacy agency the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities if the incidents are reported ... or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(B). Under this authority, P & As may, after contacting the person's guardian or representative, access a disabled individual's records on the basis of probable cause to believe that such individual has been subject to abuse or neglect. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(I) (emphasis added). In this context, [p]robable cause means a reasonable ground for belief that an individual with developmental disabilities has been, or may be, subject to abuse or neglect. 45 C.F.R. § 1386.19 (emphasis added). Law Center argued that complaints concerning general problems with classroom conditions and the treatment of students created probable cause to believe that every student in the Lake Otis special education class may have been subject to abuse or neglect, including those not named specifically. On that basis, it could demand guardian contact information from the school district. The district court disagreed, holding that complaints about classroom conditions do not establish probable cause once the teacher allegedly responsible has left, absent some showing of systemic neglect. The district court found no indication of continuing potential for abuse or neglect since the teacher and teaching assistant provoking the complaints are no longer employed at the school. The students subject to alleged abuse at Lake Otis were elementary-aged children with developmental disabilities who were particularly unable to assert their rights or to protect themselves. The DD Act does not protect such a vulnerable population only for future harm and systemic neglect. Rather, under the DD Act regulations, a P & A's belief about past harms and a P & A's belief about future harms are distinct, alternative bases for probable cause. 45 C.F.R. § 1386.19. The language of the DD Act, by employing the past tense, makes clear that P & As have authority to investigate past incidents. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 15043(a)(2)(B) (... probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred ) (emphasis added); 15043(a)(2)(I)(iii)(II) (... has been subject to abuse or neglect) (emphasis added). The district court erred in holding that probable cause under the DD Act requires some showing that abuse and neglect are ongoing or likely to recur. The fact that the offending teacher and aide had been removed from the Lake Otis classroom did not defeat Law Center's showing of probable cause.