Opinion ID: 2982202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: The district court denied qualified immunity on four of Brent’s Fourth Amendment claims. Specifically, the court found that Brent raised triable issues as to whether: (1) Mia Wenk went beyond the scope of the limited consent that had been given to her to enter the living room area of [Brent’s] home and question RAB to ensure that he had no medical problems arising from his exposure to the cold weather (January 20th visit); (2) Wenk demanded to be permitted to question RAB outside the presence of either parent (January 20th visit); (3) Wenk, Heather DecormierMcFarland, and Monica Sampson gained entry to his home by misrepresenting the purpose and intent of their visit (January 21st visit); (4) while Wenk kept the Brent parents preoccupied, and despite Brent’s expressed objections, Sampson and Decormier-McFarland went throughout the home and photographed the interior of his home (January 21st visit). In essence, Brent argues that Wenk, Decormier-McFarland, and Sampson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by exceeding the limited consent to search that he had given them. The social workers do not appear to contest that Brent has raised a triable issue as to whether he suffered a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. They instead contend that this court had not clearly established as of January 2010 that Brent had a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures performed by social workers. In support, they cite Andrews, -6- Case No. 12-2669 Brent v. Wenk et al. 700 F.3d at 859, which held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches does apply to social workers, but that such law was not clearly established as of 2008 when the relevant events in Andrews took place.