Amicus Curiae Brief — Camreta v. Greene

Supreme Court brief2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 09-1454 and 09-1478

—— SS

Supreme Court of the Anited

BOB CAMRETA,

Petitioner,

Vv.

SARAH GREENE

a minor, and K.G., a minor,

Respondent.

7 oe. — —_

JAMES ALFORD,

Petitioner,

SARAH GREENE, personally and a

a minor, and K.Gi., a minor,

Respondent.

————— . ——E—

On Writs Of Destios ari To The United States

Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

BRIEF OF THE STATES OF ARIZONA,

ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA,

COLORADO, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWALTL, IDAHO, ILLINOIS,

IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MAINE,

MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI!

MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE,

NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA,

PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOU'TH CAROLINA,

SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH,

VERMONT, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA,

WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

- @ aa

15 South 15th Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 542-8027

SohcitorGeneral@azay vo

Counsel for the

State of Arizona

TERRY GODDARD

ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

“PAULA S. BICKETT

CHIEF COUNSEL, CIVIL APPEALS

KATHLEEN }. SWEENEY

DAWN KR. WILLIAMS

MICHELILE Ro NIMMO

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL,

‘Counsel of Record

{Other Counsel IL iste -d On Inside Front Cc love fer}

Coe KLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO) (800) 225 tA

OK CALL COLLECT (402) 2 Zh51

ee ees

In The Sees

4 / 2010

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

)}, personally and as next friend for S.G.,

s next friend for S.G.,

= SF

)

TROY KING

ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL

500 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL, 36140

(334) 242-7300

RICHARD A. SVOBODNY

ALASKA ACTING ATTORNEY

GENERAL

Department of Law

P.O. Box 110300

Juneau, AK 99811-0300

(907) 465-3600

DUSTIN MCDANIEL

ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

323 Center Street, Suite 200

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 682-2007

EDMUND G. BROWN Jk.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

(IENERAL

1300 | Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

(916) 445-9555

JOHN W. SUTHERS

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL

1525 Sherman Street,

Seventh Floor

Denver, CO 802038

(403) 866-5634

JOSEPH RK. Bipen, Ll

DELAWAKE ATTORNEY

GENERAL

$20 N. French Street,

6th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

(302) 577-8400

PETER J. NICKLES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

One Judiciary Square

441 4th Street, N.W.

Suite 600 South

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 727-3400

Bink MCCOLLUM

FLORIDA ATPORNEY GENERAL

The Capitol, PL-O1

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

(850) 414-3300

THURBERT EF. BAKER

CRORGIA ATTORNEY GENERAL

132 Judicial Building

40 Capitol Square, SW

Atlanta, GA 40334

(404) 656-3300

RUSSELL A. SUZUKI

HAWAL ACTING ATTORNEY

GENERAL

425 Queen Street

Honolulu, Hl 96813

(8OS8) 586-1500

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN

IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720-0010

(208) 334-2400

LISA MADIGAN

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL

100 W. Randolph St,

12th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-3698

THOMAS J. MILLEK

IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL

1305 Kast Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-5164

STEVE SIx

KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor

Topeka, KS 66612

(785) 296-2215

JACK CONWAY

KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL

700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 696-5300

JAMES D. “BUubbY” CALDWELL

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY

GENERAL

P.O. Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005

(225) 326-6716

JANET ‘T. MiLis

MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Stix State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

(207) 626-8599

DOUGLAS F. GANSLEK

MARYLAND ATPORNEY GENERAL

200 Saint Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 576-6300

MicHaAk. A. Cox

MICHIGAN ATPORNEY GENERAL,

P.O. Box 30212

Lansing, MI 48909

(517) 373-1110

LOKL SWANSON

MINNESOTA ATTORNEY

(GENERAL,

102 State Capitol

75 Rev Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. Boulevard

St. Paul, MN 55155-1609

(651) 296-6196

JiM HOOD

MISSISSIPPL ATTOKNEY

GENERAL

P.O. Box 220

Jackson, MS 39205

(601) 359-3680

STEVE BULLOCK

MONTANA ATRORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 201401

Helena, MT 59620-1401

(406) 444-2026

JON BRUNING

NEBRASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

2115 State Capitol

P.O. Box 98920

Lincoln, NE 68509

(402) 471-2683

CATHERINE COKTEZ MASTO

NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Office of the

Attorney General

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, NV 89701

(775) 684-1112

MICHAEL A. DELANEY

Niew HAMPSHIRE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

33 Capitol Street

Concord, NH 03301

(603) 271-1202

PAULA T. Dow

New JERSEY ATTORNEY

GENERAL

25 Market Street

P.O. Box O80

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-4930

TARY K. KING

New MEXICO ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

P.O. Drawer 1508

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

(505) 827-6000

WAYNE STENEHJEM

NoOrRTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY

(GENERAL

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

(701) 328-2210

‘THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR.

PENNSYIVANIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL

16th Floor, Strawberry Square

Harrisburg, PA 17120

(717) 787-3391

Parrick C. LYNCH

RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY

GENERAL

1508S. Main St.

Providence, RI 02903

(401) 274-4400

Henry D. MCMASTER

SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY

GENERAL

PO. Box 11549

Columbia, SC 29211

(803) 734-3970

MARTY J. JACKLEY

SOUTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY

GGENERAL,

1302 FE. Highway 14, Suite |

Pierre, SD 57501-8501

(605) 773-3215

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR

‘TENNESSEB ATTORNEY

GENERAL

P.O. Box 20207

Nashville, TN 37202-0207

(615) 741-3491

GREG ABBOTT

TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

(512) 463-2100

MARK L. SHUKTLEFF

UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Utah State Capitol,

Suite # 230

PO. Box 142320

Salt Lake City, UT

$4114-2320

(801) 538-9600

WILLIAM HL. SOkRELL

VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Office of the

Attorney General

109 State Street

Montpelier, V'T 05609-1001

(802) 628-3173

RoBerRT M. MCKENNA

WASHINGTON ATTORNEY

TENERAL,

1125 Washington Street

P.O. Box 40100

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

(360) 753-6200

DARKELL V. MCGRAW, JR.

West VIRGINIA ATTORNEY

CGENERAL

Office of the

Attorney General

State Capitol, Room 26-E

Charleston, WV 25305

(304) 558-2021

J.B. VAN HOLLEN

WISCONSIN ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

17 West Main Street

Madison, WI 53703

(608) 266-1221

Bruce A. SALZBURG

WYOMING ATPORNEY GENERAL

123 State Capitol

Cheyenne, WY 82002

(307) 777-7841

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...00000000000000 00... iv

INTEREST OF THE AMICI] CURIAE STATES... |

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMEN'T....00000000000....... 2

SPIE sia thin cd ekcntciisbassdsravantiesatsnineseiaxincestonars §

Requiring a Warrant, Court Order, Paren-

tal Consent, or Exigent Circumstances

Before Interviewing a Suspected Child-

Abuse Victim Is Not Reasonable Under

the Fourth Amendment Because Such «#

Requirement Does Not Adequately Protect

the Victim

A. The Ninth Circuit Incorrectly Balanced

the Competing Interests at Stake in

Child-Abuse Investigations Because

It Did Not Recognize that Many “Un.

substantiated” Child-Abuse Reports

Result from the Inherent Difficulties

of Substantiating Maltreatment and

Not from False Reporting....................

B. The States Have a Compelling Interest

in Using Multidisciplinary Teams _ to

Investigate Child-Abuse Reports to

Minimize Further Trauma to Victims

and Maximize the Reliability of In-

vestigation Outcomes .......0....0..0..0....00.05.

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

Requiring a Warrant, Court Order,

Parental Consent, or Exigent Circum-

stances Before Allowing a Multidisci-

plinary Team to Interview a Suspected

Child-Abuse Victim Undermines the

States’ Compelling Interests in Detect-

ing and Preventing Child Abuse ...........

Because initial child-abuse reports

are often hearsay statements that

will not support probable cause,

requiring investigators to obtain

prior judicial authorization before

interviewing alleged = child-abuse

victims would seriously impede

their investigations ........................

Given that the majority of child

abusers are parents or other mem-

bers of an abused child’s household,

requiring parental consent before

interviewing a suspected = victim

may sabotage the goals of protect-

ing children and prosecuting abus-

If a child welfare agency can deter

mine that an exigency exists before

it interviews a child, it can take the

child into temporary custody and

interview the child ....0..00.000....... Rie

TABLE OF CONTEN'IS — Continued

Page

> It Is Reasonable to Interview a Sus-

pected Child-Abuse Victim at School... 38

SP AMRIT soc coc veiecnadetntaraconicetecessieceneierer eaten, 4]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.

BIR ccs vicssecaentin $n. ocia excnpnnogeunnen Weacitonanpaeamareenbs tekin 2, 22

Darryl H. vo. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 CII. 1986)................38

Decatur City Bd. of Educ. v. Aycock, 562 So. 2d

SE BIE FE, Pei icc cv cesekescecincaxegessstessennssesaveses te

Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.

I eis kets saabileitineixadescd-erasckscansiemipaett tate passim

H.R. v. State Dep't of Human Kes., 612 So. 2d

MT CN I Sis avcice dnc tuned caceiéin shivcneraesssage

Parham v. Jo.R., 442 U.S. SB4 (1979)......c.cccceccecsccccssees 16

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (19e,7)........30, 36

Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d

CIE, SE Bask conevstinvacaduenieccestenensevevesstsansovnss 3&

RS. v. State, 459 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1990) ........30, 36

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) «0.0.0... ]

Wong Sun vo. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).......31

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. IV............. sana AAG Ap cen Be passim

STATUTES

18 U.S.C. § 35092 )1)......... gE PPS RR narnia gone BFE ent 24

RE a et sooo cps cc teisccxesvssassstpsavdnnscrisusveovers 24

BE Ee We oo cise cs eacndcycsecieavccsracessekectsnstneaursccionee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Pape

Fe as ae ii acdcnaicis saiccbngs cteeinchs esta hicenes 23

ER UA.ZAS, F DOORS) os ciscciiesssccnssccscesessennsesees 23

Pied, Te, RUE. Be Bh io vn sco sccevndecccsscacscceccccdiecaccnccess 26

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 6-BOI1(2)............0ccceccssess SOO ee 26

POGR, De FIO, BS Fe vans cckescnecccscceccccvcnssscenecsonnsss 26

a Ne I Oh OI reece cacinvrricussnenesisusevedaiscanes 26

Cae: I BE CIR ooo c soc ccansdocccsnscccsecieocccscceences 28

as ee MEY Oh WE OOP wc. cca coco scavecanccctcesccccreceetnsaas 40

ON Oy Sena al ae i ee ere ere ee 25

Sr nr o.oo euubde 25

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 626.556 subd. 10(a) ..................... 28

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 50-25.1-05(2 (ec)... 40

N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 50-25.1-05.05 «2.000000... cea.. 40

NH. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:38-a....00000000000 cece 26

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-C:38, IV... 000... 40

N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 423-a(1), (2M f) ....................0000. 28

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. LOA, § 1-2-105(B)01) ...000000000.. AO

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. LOA, § 1-2-105(B)(5) «2.0. 26

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. LOA, § 1-9-102............................ 26

Pub. L. No. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4 (Jan. 31,

IIE ceceinchcesiocnncrctmcstanaasusdaterteasssdsennescCa@nerce: 23, 24, 25

Vt. Stat. Amm. tat: SS, B 4BEGCE).... .......c0cecccvennscccccesseses- 26

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.44.030(12)(a)................... 40)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

OTHER AUTHORITIES

88 Op. Att’y Gen. 84 (Ariz. 1988) .....00.0.. 0. eee 40

89 Op. Att'y Gen. 49 (Utah 1990)... See neeSeceiak 40

Ruby Andrew, Child Sexual Abuse and _ the

State: Applying Critical Outsider Methodolo-

pies to Legislative Policymaking, 39 UC.

Dawes L,. ReV. 1651 (QOOB) «......0..cccccccccsccccsceseserescsees 15

Jennifer M. Collins, Lady Madonna, Children

at Your Feet: The Criminal Justice System's

Romanticization of the Parent-Child Rela-

tionship, 93 lowa L. Rev. 131 (2007)....14, 30, 34, 36

John Doris, Rosaleen Mazur & Marney Thom-

as, Training in Child Protective Services: A

Commentary on the Amicus Brief of Bruck

and Ceci, 1 Psycuo.. Pus. Powy & L. 479

PUENTE. «cco uussusaredadciesaepernedscnisamentaadiniahpabeotantsatanes 28, 29

Brett Drake, Unraveling “Unsubstantiated,”

1 Child Maltreatment 261 (1996)....00.000.0........0..66.. 13

Brett Drake, Melissa Johnson-Reid, Inecke Way

& Sulki Chung, Substantiation and Recidi-

vism, 8 Child Maltreatment 248 (2003)................. 13

Ann N. Elhot & Connie N. Carnes, Reactions

of Nonoffending Parents to Sexual Abuse

of Their Child: A Review of the Literature,

6 Child Maltreatment 314 (2001).....0.......-.. 18

Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Interviewing Chil-

dren About Sexual Abuse: Controversies and

cel Feet GI D accinnsssesccetsnens tcsnesessstasevesas passim

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Marcia Herman-Giddens & Thomas E. Froth-

ingham, Prepubertal Female Genitalia: Ex-

amination for Bvidence of Sexual Abuse, 80

PINES TIE RUINED © go. vacnacdcondoneacedcacicesdccvaceuvcs

Hearing on S.B. 2716 before Sen. Comm. on

Human Sos., 25th Ley., Reg. Sess. GHI 2010)...

Lisa M. Jones, Kathryn EF. Atoro & Wendy A.

Walsh, Nonoffending Caregiver and Youth

Experiences with Child Sexual Abuse Inves-

tigations, 25 Journal of Interpersonal Vio-

I Sealed “a RE oS Caner Sees ey Var a

Owen DD. Jones, Hvuolutionary Analysis in Law:

An Introduction and Application to Child

Abuse, 75 N.C. L. Rev. 1117 (31997) ...................

Patricia Kohl, Melissa Johnson-Reid & Brett

Drake, Time to Leave Substantiation Behind:

Findings from a National Probability Study,

14 Child Maltreatment (Issue No. 1) 17 -..........

Danielle Laraque, Amy DeMattia & Chrstine

Low, Forensic Child Abuse Evaluation: A

Review, The Mount Sinai Journal of Medt-

cine, vol. 73 No. 8 (Dec. 2006)..........0.00.0.c eee

Kee Mackarlane & dill Waterman, Sexual

Abuse of Young Children (1986) ...0.0.000000.00........

Tomiko D. Mackey, Child Abuse: Victim’s Race

and Prosecution, ls There a Correlation?, 26

HIAMLINE J. Pus. L. & Pow’y 131 (2006).............

Page

‘

cane aw

heh 2]

aia 13

sans 20

scone

aa 29

Vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Lindsay C. Malloy & Thomas D. Lyon, Caregiv-

er Support and Child Sexual Abuse: Why

Does It Matter?, 15 Journal of Child Sexual

Abuse (Issue No. 4) 97 (2006) ....0..00..00........ 17

Judith G. MeMullen, Privacy, Family Auton-

omy, and the Maltreated Child, 75 Mara. 1.

Ny I an ol casa auenrebytesssuesstieesensccxil

Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Child Welfare Manual........ 25

Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Guidelines for Man-

dated Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect.......... 40

John E.B. Myers, Hurdence in Child Abuse and

Neplect Cases, vol. 1 (2nd ed. 1992)........................31

18, 20

William Wesley Patton, Revictimizing Child

Abuse Victims: An Empirical Rebuttal to the

Open duvenile Dependency Court Reform

Movement (2005) ..... Pius hit taiceaeccnaduitscatsais sduatae 24, 39

Denise Pintella & Susan Zuravin, lntrafamilial

Child Sexual Abuse. Predictors of Post

disclosure Maternal Beltef and Protective

Action, 6 Child Maitreatment 344 (2001) ........ 16,17

Timothy Ross, Francescs Levy & Robert Hope,

Vera Inst. of Justice, improving Responses to

Allegations of Severe Child Abuse: Results

from the fnstant Response Team Program

(charol Shakeshaft, “Educator Sexual Abuse,”

Hofstra Horizons (Spring 2003)... 00.02.00 OY

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Pape

lena Silva, Education Sector Reports, On the

Clock: Rethinking the Way Schools Use Time

GRUNT BiGU 05s sei ndoancaracoaenes dineabennisdnanduspacesstadenipantansawe vers 39

Linda Spears, “The Role of the Child Welfare

League of America,” in Preventing Child

Sexual Abuse: A National Resource Directory

IE I SIN Ds kasi cu ekg rakessevindcadcescrenverrniaxeesdes 22

Caroline 'T. ‘Trost, Chilling Child Abuse Report-

ing: Rethinking the CAPTA Amendments, 51

fe Pe A eee

U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. Admin.

for Children & Families, Child Maltreatment

PERE. FU Te SHED sc cisccecotsenncsrsscectsecieess 10, 11, 12

U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. Admin.

for Children & Famulies, Child Maltreatment

FEE Tal TS CRD vetccsoseccovessseviscsveeareses 14, 15, 37

US. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Guide-

lines for Vectim and Witness Assistance

| eee hdepdlabecenate! ts cicaia een d oes Mana Wegener coments Baad 24

Tisha R. Wiley, Legal and Social Service Re-

sponses to Child Sexual Abuse: A Primer and

Discussion of Relevant Research, 18 Journal

of Child Sexual Abuse 267 (2009)......... 13, 14, 19, 20

Amy P. Winterfeld & Taina Sakapawa, /nves-

ligation Models for Child Abuse and Neglect

Collaboration with Law Enforcement

(2OOB) .....eccecec0s-.. Pete tithe Caer e ae 26, 27, 28

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE STATES

Amici States share a compelling parens patriae

interest in protecting children. Santosky v. Kramer,

455 U.S. 745, 766 (1982). In furtherance of that

interest, many States have enacted statutes or adopt-

ed policies designed to encourage child welfare agen

cies and law enforcement departments to cooperate in

investivating and prosecuting child abuse.

In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that because

“Jaw enforcement personnel and purposes” were

involved in caseworker Bob Camreta and deputy

sheriff James Alford’s (Petitioners) warrantless in-

school interview of S.G., an allegedly abused child,

the interview violated the Fourth Amendment’s

guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei-

zures.' Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9tI

Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit’s decision will hamper

States’ ability to effectively and sensitively investi-

gate child-abuse’ allegations by preventing child

protective services (CPS) workers and law enforce

ment from interviewing suspected abuse victims at

school in the absence of a warrant, a court order,

‘Given that Petitioners “{didj not contest the district

court’s holding that the two-hour interview of SG. at her school

was a seizure,” Greene, 588 F3d LOL, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009),

Amici address the Fourth Amendment seizure considerations

without conceding that social worker or law enforcement

personnel interviews of alleved child-abuse victims in the public

school setting implicate Fourth Amendment tnterests.

‘ Except where otherwise apparent, the term “child abuse”

refers here to child-maltreatment penerally, including neglect

parental consent, or exigent circumstances. Not

allowing such interviews will undermine States’

ability to protect vulnerable children from being

sexually abused by parents or other members of the

abused child’s household.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its

‘arlier holding that “‘the general law of search war-

rants appliels| to child abuse investigations.” Greene,

588 F.3d at 1030 (quoting Calabretta v. Floyd, 189

3d 808, 814 (9th Cir. 1999)) Finding that law

enforcement purposes were too entangled in the

investigation of the possible sexual abuse of S.G., the

court held that “the decision to seize and interrogate

S.G. in the absence of a warrant, a court order, exi-

gent circumstances, or parental consent was uncon-

stitutional.” /d. That approach overlooks that the

participation of law enforcement in the joint inter-

view of suspected child-abuse victims serves not

merely law enforcement purposes, but also the vic-

tims’ own interests in being afforded a safe and

appropriate Opportunity to disclose abuse away from

the influence of a parental perpetrator or non

offending, but unsupportive, caregiver. It further

overlooks the States’ related and compelling interest

in applying best practices for child-abuse investiga-

tions — of which child interviews are a keystone — to

maximize their ability to reliably discover abuse

where it occurs and minimize trauma to child victims.

Yo the detriment of the same children that it

sought to protect, the Ninth Circuit’s decision unnec-

essarily requires parental consent, a warrant, a court

order, or exigent circumstances before CPS and law

enforcement may cooperatively interview a suspected

child-abuse victim. Realistically, imposing those

requirements will cause many abused children to

remain in harm’s way because the Ninth Circuit's

unnecessary and erroneous rule hampers States’

abilities to protect children and prosecute abusers.

Because the Ninth Circuit relied on tnaccurate

and incomplete information about the realities of

child-abuse investigations, it failed to strike the

correct balance of the competing public and private

interests at stake. First, in weighing parents’ and

children’s interests in avoiding the intrusion of such

investigations, the court incorrectly inflated” the

number of investigations that fail to result in the

substantiation of maltreatment. Second, although

millions of CPS child-abuse investigations are, in

fact, unsubstantiated, the Ninth Circuit overlooked

the many difficulties Chat attend intrafamilial child-

abuse investigations and contribute to “unsubstanti-

ated” outcomes even where maltreatment has oc

curred. Cooperative CPS and law enforcement inves-

tigations, and more particularly cooperative child

interviews, have gained wide acceptance as the best

practice because such interviews are the most effec-

tive tool available for overcoming the many obstacles

to obtaining reliable investigative outcomes while

simultaneously reducing system-induced trauma _ to

the child. Yet the Ninth Circuit’s ruling here would

further curtail the use of this critically important and

common practice, leading to even larger numbers of

incorrectly unsubstantiated investigative outcomes

and protecting fewer children from abuse.

To understand the gravity of the States’ interest

-and, by extension, the reasonableness of the joint-

interview practice absent a warrant, court order,

parental consent, or exigent circumstances — one

must understand the intrafamilial abuse dynamics

that impede child-abuse investigations before any

added layer of consiitutional protections even comes

into play. By their nature, CPS investigations typical-

ly involve situations in which the perpetrator is a

parent or other family member, and often a member

of the child’s household. If, as the Ninth Circuit

implies, CPS investigations are therefore to be seen

as “storming the castle,” see Greene, 588 F.3d at 1016,

then one must also perceive the strength of the

fortress walls behind which abused children await

rescue.

Comprised of several interlocking monoliths that

block the path to reliable detection of intrafamilial

abuse, those walls smeld abuse and abusers from

discovery because: (1) frequently, there is no witness

to the abuse other than the child-victim and no

physical evidence; (2) the child often has a close

relationship to the perpetrator and may even be

dependent on him or her for basic care and necesst-

ties; (3) the nonoffending caregiver, if any, Lkewise

often has an intimate or other close relationship to

the abuser, and these relationships may be further

influenced by imbalances of financial, physical, or

other forms of power that lead nonoffending care-

givers to protect the perpetrator, rather than the

child; and (4) child victims are inherently vulnerabie

and often reticent to disclose abuse, a phenomenon

only compounded by their susceptibility to their

abusers’ efforts to prevent such disclosure.

The need to overcome these substantial barriers

lends great weight to the States’ already compelling

interest in utilhzing those investigative methods most

likely to create an atmosphere in which children will

disclose enough information about their abuse to

enable the government to intervene and _ protect

them. States have recognized that cooperation among

agencies is the best means of advancing that interest

while minimizing investigation-related trauma to

victims of child abuse. Most States therefore employ

some variation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to

investigate reports of intrafamilial child abuse. One

yoal of MDTs is to reduce the number of interviews to

which a child is subjected, minimizing both the risk of

suggestibility in the interviewing process and the

traumatic effects of the child’s retelling his or her tale

of maltreatment to multiple interviewers. Important-

ly, MDTs’ widespread use has not as a rule resulted in

unreasonably intrusive investigative experiences for

children and families who undergo child sexual-abuse

investigations. Instead, a recent study revealed that

most children and nonoffending caregivers reported

fecling satisfied with their investigation experiences.

These successful strides in striking the right

balance between the public and private interests at

stake — achieved over decades by the cumulative

efforts of experts in all aspects of child maltreatment

are directly threatened by the Ninth Cuircuit’s

decision here. Initial child-abuse reports are often

hearsay statements that will not support the finding

of probable cause necessary to obtain a warrant or

court order. Accordingly, requiring investigators to

obtain prior judicial authorization before interviewing

alleged child-abuse victims would seriously impede

their investigations. Coupling that with what ts

known about the reticence of many child-abuse

victims to disclose abuse absent the use of child-

sensitive investigative techniques, the expectation

that probable cause could be obtained in an abbrevi

ated encounter with the child defies the realities of

intrafamilial child-abuse dynamics. Sexually abused

children who do not disclose their abuse until adult

hood establish that many children already go unpro-

tected. Imposing a warrant requirement will only

increase their ranks.

Requiring parental consent before interviewing a

suspected victim will similarly sabotage the compel-

ling state interests in protecting children and prose

culing perpetrators of child abuse. Abuse-related

deaths comprise the leading cause of trauma death in

young children, and research establishes that large

numbers of, though not all, nonoffending caregivers

will fail to protect their children even from known

abuse. Consequently, any presumption that parents

of allegedly abused children, as a group, wall consent

to investigative interviews designed to elicit: infor-

mation sufficient to uncover child abuse is a danger-

ous fallacy. In no other context would a= court

countenance requiring a state agent to obtain a

criminal suspect’s advance consent to interview the

alleged victim, especially when the victim ts one who

is particularly susceptible to the alleged perpetrator’s

influence or coerqmon. Yet the Ninth Circuit’s ruling

contemplates exactly that.

Requiring a demonstration that exigent circum-

stances justify interviewing a child at school in the

absence of a warrant or parental consent presents

similar problems. If exigencies become known to CPS,

the child may be taken into a State’s protective

custody in proceedings to protect that child. Once the

child is in the State’s custody, investigative inter-

views may take place under that authority. That is a

far greater intrusion into the family than simply

interviewing the child. More importantly, children in

cases where exigencies are known betore the child is

interviewed are not the children whose welfare the

Ninth Circuit’s ruling jeopardizes. Instead, it is those

children whose circumstances are not sufficiently

known and cannot be determined in the absence of an

effective investigative interview

By contrast, allowing States to effect in-school

interviews of children is a reasonable alternative that

satisfactorily balances the relative interests involved

Children are likely to be available during predictable

and reasonable hours at school. More importantly,

school is a familiar settings to most children, and one

likely to be away from both the location and the

perpetrator of the suspected mtrafamilial abuse.

Applying the reasonableness balancing test that

this Court has apphed inp similar circumstance:

would adequately protect the relative interests at

take and lead to the conclusion that the interview, or

“cseyzure,” of SG. conducted here was reasonable and

did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Accord

miply, this Court should reverse that portion of the

Ninth Circuit’s judgment that holds that Petitroners

violated the fkourth Amendment.

ARGUMENT

Requiring a Warrant, Court Order, Parental

Consent, or Exigent Circumstances Before

Interviewing a Suspected Child-Abuse Victim

Is Not Reasonable Under the Fourth Amend-

ment Because Such a Requirement Does Not

Adequately Protect the Victim.

Petitioners have addressed the lepal issues

Supporting ther argument that the Ninth Circuit

erred in holding that they violated the Fourth

Amendment when they interviewed SG. at her schoo!

without obtamiung a warrant, court order, or parental

consent, and in the absence of exigent circumstances

Thus, Amie: States will focus on the difficulties

involved in investigating child abuse; the need for

MI)'Ts toanvestupate child abuse; and the reasons that

requiring prior yudiqal authorization, parental con-

sent, or exigent circumstances before allowing a

Child-abuse vietim to be interviewed would seriously

undermine the States’ ability to detect and prevent

Child abuse and thereby harm the very vietims whom

the Ninth Circuit wanted to protect. The standard

apphed to determine whether interviews of suspected

Child-abuse victims comply with Fourth Amendment

requirements should recognize the inherent differ-

ences ino interviewing children who are victims. of

abuse versus those who are being investipated as

Suspect:

A. The Ninth Circuit Incorrectly Balanced

the Competing Interests at Stake in

Child-Abuse’ Investigations Because

lt Did Not Recognize that Many “Un-

substantiated” Child-Abuse Reports

Result from the Inherent Difficulties

of Substantiating Maltreatment and

Not from False Reporting.

The Ninth Cireuit identified the competing

interests at issue in this case as sometly s “compelling:

interest in protecting ats most vulnerable members

from abuse within their home” on one hand, and

parents’ “exceedingly strony ianterest]s} in directing

the upbringing of them children... land| protecting

both themselves and their children from the embar-

rassment and socal stigmatization attached to child

abuse investivations” on the other. Greene, 588 I Sd

at 1015-16. The Ninth Cireuit imptred that parents’

Inferest in protecting themselves from potential

negative consequences of CPS investigations is “ex

cecdingly strong,” in part, because “only about a

quarter” of “the millions of investigations conducted

hy state and local agencies in Z0O07 ©. . concluded that

the children were indeed victims of abuse” fd. at

1015-16. The reader is left to draw the mistaken

inference that roughly 75% of those investigations

must have needlessly exposed parents and children to

“embarrassment and social stigmatization” where the

child-abuse allegations investigated were simply

false. But the court’s assumption is wrong because it

maccurately inflates the uumber of investigations

and overlooks the difficulties inherent in mivestiyat-

ing intrafamilial child abuse that can result in the

failure to substantiate maltreatment.

The Ninth Circuit inaccurately states that in

that same year, “state and local agencies investigated

432 million reports of child abuse or neglect.” Greene,

588 Sd at JOS Ceting the Child Maltreatment

Report for 2007 by the U.S. Departinent of Health

and Human Services Administration for Children and

Parmuilies)” The court’s statement is inaccurate in two

ways. First, it refers to 3.2 million “reports,” when, in

fact, the cited Child Maltreatment Report states that

CVS agencies received 3.2 million “referrals.” Child

Maltreatment Report for 2007, supra, ch. 2. Second,

~ Accessible at: http //www.aetihs pov/programs/cb/pubs/emo 7//

chapter2 htm (viewed December 14, 2010) (hereinafter Child

Maltreatment Keport for 2007)

the Greene ruling states that all 4.2 millon of these

were “investigated,” when, in fact, 380% of them were

nol ld

When CPS ayencies receive a referral, a screen-

ing process determines whether the referral meets

state criteria for investigation or assessment. /d

Only those referrals that meet those criteria become a

“report” and reach the investigative or assessment

stage. Id. As the Child Maltreatment Report for 2007

plainly states, only 62% of the 3.2 million referrals

reeeinved in fiseal year 2007 reached the report-and

Investigation stage, meaning that 48% were “screened

out.” Id. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit’s statement

that 4.2 milhon “reports” were “investigated,” Greene,

54S Sd at 1015, 1s incorrect. Well over one million of

those referrals were never investigated at all. Child

haitreatment Report jor 2007, supra, ch. 2

With regard to the other 620 of referrals that

were “sereened in” for investigation or assessment in

2007, 61.3% were determined to be “unsubstantiat-

ed.” Child Maltreatment Report for 2007, supra, ch.

2 An “unsubstantiated” report means “[ajln invests

pation disposition that determines that there was

not suffiaent evidence under State law to conclude

or suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk

of being maltreated.” Id) A “substantiated” report

denotes “lajn investigation disposition that concludes

that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of

tnaltreatment was supported or founded by State law

or State pohey.” Jd

Although the Child Maltreatment Report for 2007

categorically includes “unsubstantiated” dispositions

amony a class of investigations described as having

“led to a finding that the children were not victims of

maltreatment,” rd., such findings do not necessarily

mean that abuse did not occur or that the children

were not at risk for maltreatment.’ Certainly, a report

right be unsubstantiated because abuse did not

occur or no identifiable risk was present. However,

because the absence of “sufficient evidence under

State law” is the defining feature of an unsubstant:

ated report, barriers to obtaining “sufficrent evidence”

of child abuse to justify substantiation may also be

responsible. Notably, “children whose cases are

determined to be unsubstantiated and children whose

cases are substantiated are equally likely to return to

the system, regardless of how stringent the criteria

used to define rereferral. This trend would not be

‘ “Unfortunately, some authors, referring to the proportion

of cases that are not substantiated, imply that an unsubstants.

ated case is the equivalent of a deliberate false allegation,” and,

“{bJased upon this distortion, —.. have asserted that there is an

overwhelming flood of false, malbeously made reports of child

maltreatment.” Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Interviewing Children

About Sexual Abuse Controversies and Best Practices (2007) at

194-94 (citations omitted) Others “have declared that there ts

an atmosphere of hysteria about allegations of sexual abuse |

and have compared this to the Salem watch trials,” but “(jo

data ... are provided to support these assertions.” Jd at 194

(citations omitted)

expected if it were simply the case that unsubstanti

ated cases were false.” Tisha Ro Wiley, Legal and

Social Service Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: A

Primer and Discussion of Relevant Research, 18

Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 267, 282 (2009) Coitinys

Brett Drake, Melissa Johnson-Reid, Ineke Way, and

Sulki Chung, Substantiation and Recidivism, 8 Child

Maltreatment 248 (2003); Brett: Drake, Unraveling

“Unsubstantiated,” 1 Child Maltreatment 261 (1996)):

see also Patricia Kohl, Melissa Johnson-Reid, and

Brett Drake, Time to Leave Substantiation Behind:

Findings from a National Probability Study, 14 Chald

Maltreatment 17 (finding risk of recidivism similar

regardless of substantiation status of the index

Investigation)

An unknown proportion of “unsubstantiated”

investigations are therefore “false negative” outcomes

(meaning that maltreatment occurred but went

undetected). Many of these false negative CPS inves-

tigative outcomes result from the facet that chuld-

abuse investigations, by nature, present a minefield

of intrinsic obstacles that CPS investigators (with or

without the participation of law enforcement) must

overcome, notwithstanding any additional layer of

Kourth Amendment protections afforded to the abus.

ers or their child victims. Because the Ninth Circuit

fuuled to understand these complexities, it erred in

holding that Petitioners violated the Fourth Amend

ment when they interviewed a suspected child-abuse

victim without prior judiqial authorization, parental

consent, or exigent circumstances. It also failed to

recognize the pravity of the States’ interest in ensur-

my that their investigative methods specifically,

child interviews — are as likely as possible to suceeed

in both unearthing child abuse and preventing the

infliction of investiyation-related trauma on the

abused children that States most need to protect

hirst among the dynamics involved, “|tlhere are

typically no witnesses to the abuse other than the

child victim... .” Jennifer M. Collins, Lady Madonna,

Children at Your Feet: The Criminal Justice Systenis

Romanticization of the Parent-Child Relationship, 93

Jowa LL. Rev. 131, 151 (2007). Likewise, in child

sexual abuse cases, “physical evidence ts often non-

existent or inconclusive.” Wiley, supra, at 275. For

these reasons, “lalnterviewing child victims is) a

crucial aspect of investizations. .. .” Id

Second, the child often has a close relatsonship to

his or her abuser, as does the co-offending or

nonoffending parent in many cases. According to the

Child Maltreatment Report for 2008, 81.2% of the

victims were maltreated by a parent” Stepparents

inflicted the abuse in 4.4% of the cases, parents’

unmarricd partners inflicted the abuse in another

* See http//Awww.acl hhs pov/proprams/ch/pubs/cm0s tipures 6

him (igure $-6, Vietams by Perpetrator Kelationship, 2005)

(viewed December 14, 2010), see also http /www act hhs pov/

proprams/cb/pubs/em0W chapters htm (reflecting that appross

mately 49% of the victums were maltreated by their mother, 18%

hy their father, and 18% by both parents) (viewed December 14,

2010)

44% of the cases, and other relatives inflicted the

abuse in 6.5% of the cases.” It is therefore likely that

many of the perpetrators also lived in the child's

household) Like other forms of maltreatment in CPS

cases, “[cJhild sexual abuse remains, in the over-

whelming majority of cases, a crime perpetrated by

members of the child’s family and circle of trust.”

Ruby Andrew, Child Sexual Abuse and the State

Applying Critical Outsider Methodologies to Legisla-

tive Policymaking, 89 ULC. Davis L. Rev. 1851, 18535

(2006)

Third, not only are child sexual abusers likely to

be close to the child, but they “may have engaged in a

range of strategies to prevent children from disclosing

sexual abuse.” Faller, supra note 4, at 175. In other

words, abuser: most often the child’s parent or

parents, who have ready access to the child — may

actively foster the potential for false negative tnvest-

gation oulcomes sy contrast, professionals who

interview children about sexual abuse “are usually

strangers to the children they interview,” and wall

often employ an interview protocol designed to avoid

“false-positives” (eg., asking open-ended questions to

counter any sugyestibility of the chuld). fd.

linally and consequently, intrafamilial relationship

dynamics profoundly, and negatively, affect the lkeh-

hood that CPS investigations will discover “suffierent

* See http /iwww. act hhs pov/progranms/ch/pubsvemod/chapters

htm (viewed December 14, 2010)

evidence” of child abuse to allow for substantiation

Virtually by definition, CPS investigations most often

involve the child's parents or parent figures. But

research suggests that the likelihood of a child dis-

closing abuse drops considerably when the abuser is a

parent figure or when a nonoffending parent is un-

supportive of the child. See Faller, supra note 4, at

189. Faller’s comprehensive review of research on

child sexual-abuse interviews “supports a conclusion

that there are substantial numbers of false negatives

or disclosure failures in cases of actual sexual abuse,”

particularly in “cases of children abused by someone

close to them and cases in which children’s caretakers

are unsupportive.” Id. Cases of this nature “seem to

result in a very high number of disclosure failures.”

Notwithstanding traditional legal presumptions

about parents’ tendencies to act in their children’s

best interests, see Parham vo. d.R., 442 US. 584, 602

(1979) empirical data show that the presence of a

supportive or protective caretaker cannot reasonably

be presumed in the context of intrafamilial child

sexual abuse and, by extension, neither can the

likelihood of the child’s disclosure. For ¢xample, in a

study of 435 biological, nonoffending mothers of

children involved with CPS who were victims of

sexual abuse perpetrated by a parent, relative, or

houschold or family member, nearly one-third (GO.8%

neither beleved nor protected their children. Denise

Pintello and Susan Zuravin, lntrafameltal Child

Sexual Abuse: Predictors of Postdtsclosure Maternal

Beltef and Protective Action, 6 Child Maltreatment

344, 347-48 (2001). In fact, only 41.8% of the mothers

belreved their children’s disclosures and took protec

tive action. 1d) And the remaining 27.30 of the moth-

ers het “ambivalent” reactions, meaning they either

beheved that abuse had occurred but did not protect

their children or took protective action despite their

disbehef. Jd. at 348 In sum, as many as 44.1% of

mothers did not take protective action. Jd) at 347-48.

Moreover, mothers’ relationships to the abusers

influenced the hkelihood that they would belreve and

protect their children. More than half of the mothers

were in a current sexual relationship with the offend

er, id. at 346, but those who were not in such rela

Gionships were 4.3 times more likely to beleve and

protect their sexually abused children, md. at 348

The chillng effect of a nonoflending parents

disbelief or unsupportaveness tends to survive even in

the presence of compelling medical evidence of abuse

See Lindsay C. Malloy and Thomas D. Lyon, Caregiv

er Support and Child Sexual Abuse: Why Does It

Matter?, 15 Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (Issue No.

4) 97, 95 (2006) (discussing a study in which children

presenting a sexually transmutted disease ino the

absence of prior suspicions of abuse failed to disclose

at dramatically different rates when children had

supportive [37%] versus nonsupportive caregivers

I839)) “Many children, if they disclose at all, will

disclose to their mothers,” but “|nlonsupportive

caregivers ... are unlikely to report the abuse to

social services [and] (even supportive caregivers may

have reasons not to notify the authorities)” Jd at 99

‘These so-called “dead-end” disclosures may further

reduce, preclude, or delay the likelihood of disclosure

fil

But perhaps most significantly, even if a caregiy

cr reports the abuse, the caregiver’s unsupportive

ness nevertheless “may lead the child to fail to

disclose the abuse when questioned by CPS. Thus

would ltkely prevent substantiation and intervention,

because social workers primarily rely on a disclosure

from the child to substantiate abuse.” Id. (emphasis

added )

The presence of an abusive parent, not surpris-

ingly, also correlates with lower disclosure rates

among physically and sexually abused children. For

example, in a review of more than 26,000 forensic

interviews conducted for physical and sexual abuse.

almost two thirds of the alleged offenders were parent

figures, yet disclosure of abuse occurred in only 20.9%

of cases involving parent figures, compared to 89.3%

of nonparent cases. See Faller, supra note 4, at 54

Many factors influence maternal beliet or supportiveness

following disclosure of sexual abuse, sacluding intimacy, finan-

eral dependence, or cohabitation with the offender, the mother’s

own history of abuse, the victim's age (younger children are

more hkely to be beheved); and the victim’s pender See Ann N

Elliot and Comme N. Carnes, Reactions of Nonoffending Parents

to Sexual Abuse of Their Child) A Review of the Literature, ©

Child Maltreatment 314, 317-19 (200))

Given these known barriers to children’s disclo-

sure of intratamulial sexual abuse, an inherent meth-

odology limitation of the related research (only those

cases that come to professional attention can be

studied) suggests that countless other abused chil

dren go wholly unidentified) Faller, supra mote 4, at

189 “|Tihe findings regarding disclosure failures

probably represent an underidentification of the prob

lem of children who do not tell.” Jd “Indeed, many

people who are abused never disclose their abuse or

only do so as adults.” Wiley, supra, at 275 (citations

omitted). “Children may also blame themselves or feel

guilty for their abuse.” /d (citations omitted). Even

for many children who do tell, “disclosure is a process,

Which may involve mitial denial of abuse and later

retraction.” Faller, supra note 4, at 1&9

Against these many hurdles, it is often “the

responsibility of child welfare professionals to obtain

children’s stomes through forensic interviewing.”

Wiley, supra, at 275. What this means, of course, ts

that the children most likely in need of CPS interven

tion — that is, children who are abused by parent

figures and whose nonoffending parents, if any, are

unsupportive or not protective — may very well be

those least likely to disclose their abuse to anyone, let

alone disclose it in a single, brief encounter with a

CPS investigator. Such children might very well end

up on the rosters of “unsubstantiated” reports — and

unprotected children. In one study, as many as 60% of

children who made “dead-end” disclosures to a parent

reported that the abuse reoccurred Malloy, supra, at

LOO

Accordingly, States have a compelling interest in

“vetting children to disclose enough information

about actual abuse to support a successful investiga-

tion and protect children.” Wiley, supra, at 277 (cita-

tions omitted). Best practices guidelines for doing so

vary to a degree, but generally advise that the inter

view should take place in a neutral setting and that

the interview be phased, allowing sufficient time for

rapport building, information gathering, and closure

See Faller, supra note 4, at 66-89 (for an overview of

Interview structure, protocol, and guidelines), Dan

elle Laraque, Amy DeMattia, and Christine Low,

Forenste Child Abuse Rvaluation: A Revorew, 73 Mount

view structures “are designed to avoid interviewers

eliciting false posttives, which appear to be a lesser

problem than false negatives.” Faller, supra note 4, at

S58. For example, use of rapport building has been

shown to increase children’s accuracy in event recol-

lection. Jd. at 72

Child interviews have come to be widely recog

nized as “the most viable and valuable source of

information about the likelihood of sexual abuse.” /d

at 35. Contrary to fears that families experience these

investigations as soqally sttymatizing or embarrass

ing, Greene, SSS F3d at 1016, a recent study of

nonoflending caregiver and youth experiences with

child sexual abuse investigations found that both

groups were mostly satisfied with ther experiences

during the investigative process. See Lisa M. Jones,

Kathryn EF. Atoro, and Wendy A\ Walsh, Nono/fendins

Caregiver and Youth Expertences urith Child Sexual

Abuse Investigations, 25 Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 291 (2010). In fact, the chief complarnt

among nonoflending caregivers Was “the teeling that

compared to what they had expected, cases were mot

being pursued effectively or vigorously enough by

investivators.” dd. at SO7 Cemphasis added). Such

findings hardly comport with the motion that govern

ment widely engages in unreasonable investigative

practices in this context

In sum, States have an imperative interest: in

ensuring their ability both to interview children

whom they reasonably suspect are victims of abuse

and to conduct those interviews im a@ manner that

maximizes the likelihood of “actual abuse” disclo

sures, While minimizing investigation-related trauma

and preventing false accusations. Cooperative, ot!

multidisciplinary, investigations are the best avails

ble means to that end

B. The States Have a Compelling Interest

in Using Multidisciplinary Teams to

Investigate Child-Abuse Reports to

Minimize Further Trauma to Victims

and Maximize the Reliability of Inves-

tigation Outcomes.

States have recognized that the best way to

achieve safety for children and to minimize trauma to

child victims is to require the state agencies charged

with gaveslipating and prosecuting child abuse to

cooperate. Child-abuse investigations necessarily

implicate law enforcement issues.” Moreover, they are

inherently difficult for the children and the famihes

involved. Many States therefore encourage or require

cooperation between child-welfare agencies and law

enforcement departments because as the Ninth

Curcuit acknowledged, “\ilt may well be that fostering

coordination and collaboration between caseworkers

and law enforcement officers is an effective way both

to protect children and to arrest and prosecute child

abusers — each, of course, povernmental activity of

the highest importance.” Greene, 586 BF.Sd at 1029.

Indeed, “|sjome of the measures which seem to have

the preatest impact on lowering instances of child

sexual abuse are yoint protocols with law enforcement

and forensie evaluations — teams with individuals

from various fields... 2” Janda Spears, “The Role of

the Child Welfare Leayue of America,” in Preventing

Child Sexual Abuse: A Nattonal Resource Directory

and Handbook C2005)

Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit: found that law

cnforcement’s direct involvement in the Greene inves

liyation necessitated the appheation of ““the peneral

law of search warrants’” Greene, 588 FS8d at JOGO

(quoting Calabretta, 189 IeSd at &14). It did so even

theugh the law enforcement officer merely observed

“AL filly States have laws eriuminalizing child abuse. See

tref of Amie States in Support of Petition for Certiorarnt Cstates:

Cart) Amuser Brief), od)

2:3

Camreta’s interview of SG. while simultaneously

chnyapiny in an ongoing investigation into criminal

charges apainst S.G.’s father. See ad. at 1017. What

the Ninth Cireuit failed to recognize, however, is that

state agencies for protecting children and for prose

culing crimes against children are often required to

collaborate under state law and under best-practices

principles in both the social work and the law en-

forcement fields.

Bepinning with the passage of the Child Abuse

Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974, Pub.

L. No. 93-247, &% Stat. 4 (Jan. 41, 1974) (eodified as

amended at 42 U.S.C. &§ 5101 to 5119¢), the federal

povernment has demonstrated an interest in improyv-

my Child-abuse prevention efforts, specifically by

“creating and improving the use of |MDT} and inter

ayeney protocols to enhance investigations,” 42 U.S.C.

{ 5J0Galan 2A. States cligible for federal grants to

support the development of these MDTs may lose

those funds af they are unable to continue using

information that was collaboratively collected in cases

in Which there was law enforcement involvement. See

42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b 2) A)Og) (conditioning cligibility

for funding under CAPTA on a State’s submission of a

plan that assures that a state law or program relat-

my to child abuse and neglect includes “the coopera-

lion of State law enforcement officials, courts of

competent jurisdiction, and appropriate State agen

aes providing human services in the investigation,

assessment, prosecuuon, and treatment of child

abuse or neyvlect”).

The U.S. Department of Justice has similarly

advocated for the use of MDTs “composed of repre

sentatives from health, social service, law enforce

ment, and legal service agencies to coordinate the

assistance needed to handle cases of child abuse.”

US. Dep't of dustice, Attorney General Guidelines for

Victim and Witness Assistance (2005) at 50. The

purpose of these leams “is to maintain the credibility

and reliability of the child’s testimony as well as to

monitor the child’s safety and well-being throughout

the case.” Id. Multidisciphnary teams “shall be used

when it is feasible to do so,” with the goals of min

mizing the number of interviews to which the child is

subjected “to reduce the risk of supgestibility mn the

interviewing process,” to provide services to the child,

and to monitor the child’s safety and well-being. /d.

And, under federal law, victims of crimes have “[t}he

right to be reasonably protected from the accused.” 18

USC. § 3771 (a1). More specifically, child victims of

crimes are specifically puaranteed the services of

MDITs “when it is feasible to do so” 18 USC.

& $509(p)(1).

Following CAPTA’s cnactment, the States quickly

adopted joint-investigation protocols. Missour: identi-

fied several ways that joint-investigation protocols

can benefit victims and state agences: reducing the

number of interviews for child) victims, avoiding

' Accessible at http //www justice pov/olp/pdi/ay puidelines

pal (viewed December 14, 2010)

dupheation of efforts, enhancing the quality of evi-

dence, smoothing transitions between investigation

and intervention, facilitating direct communication

between team members, improving team members’

skills by “sharing different: perspectives,” enhancing

efficiency, and expediting treatment. Mo. Dep't of Soc.

Servs., Child Welfare Manual, sec. 2, ch. 4, subsec. 2

(2008)."" Hawaii just revised its children’s code during

the 2010 legislative session, in part to bring it into

compliance with CAPTA. See 2010 Haw. Sess. Laws

Act 135 (S.B. 2716) (codified at Haw. Rev. Stat.

SS 587A-1 through -43); Hearing on S.B. 2716 before

Sen. Comm. on Human Servus., 25th Leg., Reg. Sess.

(HI 2010) (testimony of the Department of the Attor-

ney General 2/4/2010)."

That information gleaned from a cooperative

investigation between CPS and law enforcement may

ultimately be used to pursue criminal charges against

an abuser should not negate the collaborative child-

interview processes that many state statutes contem

plate. For example, Arizona’s Leyislature required

Arizona's Department of Economic Security to devel

op and implement protocols with law enforcement for

* Accessible at http //dss mo gov/ed/nfo/ewmanual/section2/

ch4é/seeZch4subZ htm (viewed December 14, 2010)

Notably, Hawaii also allows departmental representatives

to “fajaterview the child without the presence or prior approval

of the child’s fiamily and temporarily assume protective custody

of the child for the purpose of conducting the interview.” Haw.

Kev Stat. §& 587A-1102)

investigating and = sharing information regarding

reports of abuse that implicate certain Arizona crim

nal statutes. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ &-304(B), -801(2),

-SO7T(1S), -8 17.

Oklahoma also requires multidisciplinary inves-

tivation of allegations of sexual abuse or serious

physical abuse “when appropriate and possible,”

Okla. Stat. tit. LOA, §& 1-2-105(B)(5), to “ensure coor-

dination and cooperation between all agencies in-

volved so as to increase the efficiency in handling

such cases and to minimize the stress created for the

allegedly abused child by the legal and investigatory

process,” Okla. Stat. tit. 1OA, § 1-9-102. At least

nineteen other States have similar statutes in effect

that mandate or encourage collaboration between

child welfare departments and law’ enforcement

avencies investigating child-abuse allegations.”

These federal and state laws and policies are

consistent with the recognition by experts im child-

abuse investigations that best practices require the

use of MDTs. The Children’s Services division of

American Humane conducted a comprehensive na-

tional study to evaluate the effectiveness of varying

levels of cooperative child-abuse investigation prac-

tices. See Amy P. Winterfeld and Taina Sakagawa,

Investipation Models for Child Abuse and Neplect -

* See States’ Cert. Amici brief, nl’; NEE Rev Stat Ann

& 169-C.38-a, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 54, § 491501).

Collaboration with Law Enforcement (2003). The

investivation revealed that “[aleross sites, profession.

al disciplines, and amony all national representa

lives, a joint, collaborative approach to investigating

child maltreatment by law enforcement and child

protective services is seen as the preferred ap-

proach. ...” Id. at 7.

The collaborative approach is scen as “a strength

of the investigative process” because

a. It minimizes the trauma to child-victims

by reducing the number of times that they

must reiterate their retelling of traumatic

events.

b. It reduces the trauma and intrusion of

the investigative process for non-oflending

family members by avoiding the annoyance

of having povernment personnel in the

houschold on multiple occasions.

ce The process itself helps to produce inter-

agency collaboration by bringing together

personnel from different agencies when the

interview is conducted and for pre- and post-

interview meetings.

do. The development of common interview

yuidelines that specify how to conduct a child

interview concerning sexual abuse is) a

strength,

* Accessible at http//www americanhumane orp/assets/docs/

protecting -children/PCanvestipation models child abuse neglect pdt

(viewed December 14, 2010).

Id. at 13 (internal quotes omitted); see also John

Doris, Rosaleen Mazur, and Marney Thomas, Train

ing in Child Protective Services: A Commentary on the

Amicus Brief of Bruck and Cect, 1 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y

& L. 479, 487 (1995) (MDTs have been documented to

“reducle| the number of interviews a child must

undergo,” “increase| | the number of perpetrators

identified and the number of charges pressed,” and

increase “the provision of mental health and other

services for the sexually abused child.”) (citations

omitted); Kee MacFarlane and Jill Waterman, Sexual

Abuse of Young Children (1986) at 318 (wherever

possible, medical, psychological, and law enforcement

evaluations should be coordinated and jointly con

ducted in one place in order to prevent duplication

and minimize investigatory trauma to children”).

“ Many state laws and policies require cooperation and

coordination between child welfare workers and law entforce-

ment personnel precisely to “avoid a duplication of fact-finding

efforts and multiple interviews,” Mion. Stat. Ann. § 626.556,

subd. 10Ga), and to “consider the needs of the child victims and

_do whatever is necessary to prevent psycholojyacal harm to

the child vietim,” Cal. Penal Code § 11164(b) Many States also

encouraye that interviews be kept to a minimum or even

specifically limit the number of times that state entities may

interview a child abuse victim to “minimizel | the trauma to the

children and their non-offending family members” during

investigations. NY Soc Serv Law § 424-a(b), (2006) “[Blecause

abused children’s cesiltence and defense mechanisms are not as

strony as those of adults, children are more lkely to suller

renewed episodes of PTSD when questioned about the abuse,”

making at imperative to limit the situations in which the child ts

expected to relive the abuse. William Wesley Patton, Revictunizing

(Continued on following page)

States have also mandated that anyone responsi-

ble for conducting the interviews possess specialized

training to maximize the effecuuveness of the inter

view while minimizing the trauma to the child.”

Consequently, law enforcement personnel may dele

gate responsibility for child-victim interviews — to

trained social workers, while observing the interviews

in order to comply with their mandate to investigate

and ultimately prosecute child abuse. See Doris,

supra, at 485 (noting that CPS agencies may have

necessary investigatory resources that are not availa-

ble to law enforcement agencies) Finally, the use of

MDTs can he!p eliminate bias in investigating and

prosecuting child-abuse and neglect cases due to

increased accountability to team members. Tomiko D.

Mackey, Child Abuse: Victim’s Race and Prosecution,

Is There a Correlation?, 26 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Poly

131, 138 (2006).

Child Abuse Victims: An Empirical Rebuttal to the Open Juve

nile Dependency Court Reform Movement (2005) at 345

" See States’ Cert Amici Bret, 21-22

*arental Consent, or Exigent Circum-

stances Before Allowing a Multidisci-

plinary ‘Team to Interview a Suspected

Chiid-Abuse Victim Undermines the

States’ Compelling Interests in Detect-

ing and Preventing Child Abuse.

1. Because initial child-abuse reports

are often hearsay statements that

will not support probable cause,

requiring investigators to obtain

prior judicial authorization before

interviewing alleged = child-abuse

victims would seriously impede

their investigations.

Generally, obtaining a warrant or a court order to

authorize an interview of a child requires the entity

seeking the warrant or the court order to demon-

strate that there is probable cause to believe that the

child has been or will be subjected to abuse or neglect

See US. Const. amend. IV Demonstrating that

probable cause exists is particularly difficult in child-

abuse situations because often only the abuser and

the victim Know about the offense. See Pennsylvania

v. Ritchie, 480 US. 39, 60 (1987) (“Child abuse ts one

of the most difficult crimes to detect and prosecute,

in large part because there often are no witnesses

except the victim.”); accord Collins, supra, at 151.

lor the same reason, investigative agencies are often

unable to determine the validity of an initial abuse

report until they interview the alleged child victinn.

See ROS. v. State, 459 N.W.2d 680, 686 (Minn. 1990)

(acknowledging the State’s argument that “|[blecause

so often only the child victim and perpetrator have

actual specific knowledge of the abuse, ... the as-

sessment interview is the best means of assessing the

truth or falsity of a report of abuse”). The prohibi-

tion against basing probable cause on untested hear

say statements, such as those that often form the

basis for initial child-abuse investigations, exacer-

bates this conundrum. See Wong Sun vo. United

States, 371 US. 471, 479-80 (1963) (stating that

untested informant information is insufficient to

support probable cause)

Many States do have some procedure for obtain:

ing prior judicial authorization to conduct a search

or seizure incident to a child-abuse investigation.”

However, States have also recognized the difficulties

inherent in such procedures. Alabama’s courts have

noted that requiring CPS to obtain a court order

before conducting an interview sometimes “impedes

the intent of the child abuse statute and in emer-

gency instances may render it inoperable and

* The interview of the victim is “the most critical factor in

establishing whether or oot sexual abuse or exploitation has

occurred,” Marcia Herman-Giddens and Thomas &

Frottungham, Prepubertal Female Genitalia: Kxamination for

Fetdence of Sexual Abuse, 80 Pediatrics 203, 208 (1987), piven

that there is physical or laboratory evidence of sexual abuse tn

only 10 to 50 percent of eases, Jolin EB Myers, Rurdence in

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, vol 1, at 268 0 243 (2nd ed

199?)

' See States’ Cert Amici Brief, n 4

ineffective.” Decatur City Bd. of Educ. vo. Aycock, 562

So. 2d 1331, 1335 (Ala. App. 1990). And when the

investigation itself may result in criminal proceed

ings or in the removal of the child, establishing the

probable cause necessary to obtain a court order may

be difficult if the only source of information regarding

the abuse or neglect allegations is the “unsworn

hearsay” of a child-abuse hotline report. H.R. vo. State

Dept of Human Res., 612 So. 2d 477, 479-80 (Ala. Civ.

App. 1992).

Trying to determine whether probable cause

exists to support an application for a warrant or court

order based on nothing more than the initial child-

abuse hothne report or a brief interview with the

child increases the chances for error: either determin

ing that there is insufficient evidence to support a

warrant resulting in a child being left in a dangerous

environment or engaging the court’s resources in

addition to CPS and law enforcement to undertake a

full-blown investigation when none was necessary.

See Caroline T. Trost, Chilling Child Abuse Reporting:

Rethinking the CAPTA Amendments, 51 Vand. L. Rev

183, 204 (1998) (“If a social worker must decide on

the basis of a bnef phone call or fifteen minute visit

whether a report is true, the margin for error is

bound to be fairly high.”).

Recognizing the problems inherent in obtamiung

the information necessary to support further investi

gation of child-abuse claims, many of the same States

that have a warrant or a court order procedure for

child-abuse cases also permit interviews of children

without a warrant, a court order, or parental approval

- . . al

m certain circumstances.

2. Given that the majority of child

abusers are parents or other mem-

bers of an abused child’s house-

hold, requiring parental consent

before interviewing a_ suspected

victim may sabotage the goals of

protecting children and prosecut-

ing’ abusers.

As discussed above, within the population «

abused children, the frequency with which children

are abused by a parent or by another household

member demonstrates why CPS and law enforcement

personnel often have a compelling need to interview

suspected abuse victims in a neutral setting away

from and without notice to their parents or other

household members. See Argument LA, supra. Pre

suming that every parent of an abused child will

always do what is necessary to protect that child is a

dangerous fallacy:

[Ojne reason we do not pay sufficient atten-

tion to the reality of violence against chail-

dren in this country, that we struggle with

holding some parents accountable for the

harm they do to their children, is because of

our tendency lo romanticize the parent-child

relationship.... [Wle continue to believe

that love, not law, is sufficient to protect our

Sev States Cert Amici briet, of

children, even in situations where love is

clearly not enough. In other words, we en-

gage in denial; we want to believe that par-

ents will do the right thing by their children

without the intervention of the criminal jus

tice system.

Collins, 93 lowa L. Rev. at 134.

In cases of maltreatment, the assumption — that

parents and families will protect their children from

harm — is belied by the frequency of intrafamuilial!

sexual abuse and even infanticide.’ Moreover, the

“belief that parenting comes naturally is not only

wrong, it endangers the welfare of children by pre-

Venting necessary interventions.” dudith G. MeMul-

len, Privacy, Family Autonomy, and the Maltreated

Child, 75 Marq. L. Rev. 569, 592 (1992). “It is appar

ent that although parents may be in the best position

to assess and act to further their children’s best

interests, there are no guarantees they will actually

do either” Jd. at 596. “|[DJjepending on their

knowledge, experience, social supports, and environ.

ment, parents may not be able to accurately assess

the best interests of their children.” Jd) Consequently,

wiving a parent — whether or not he or she is the

* “Very conservative estimates of infanticide rates in the

Limited States, for example, range trom about three to thirteen

abuse related deaths per day, makiny abuse the leading cause ot

trauma death tor young children — over auto accidents, acct

dental falls, choking on food, drowniny, and the like” Owea D

Jones, Kvolutionary Analysts ino Lan: An Introduction and

Applicatum to Child Abuse, 748 NLC. L. Rev. 1117, 1172-73 (1907)

abuser — the power to prevent an imterview of a child

alleged to be the victim of the abuse further victimiz

es the child

When, as in the present case, the alleged abuser

is a member of the child’s household, requiring a

parent’s consent to interview the child provides the

parent with an opportunity to deliberately or inad-

vertently influence the child’s statements regarding

any abuse that may have occurred.” Even a parent

whois not the alleged perpetrator will often have an

emotional and/or a financial interest in maintaming

an intact family unit. For example, there was some

suggestion in the present case that removing the

allegedly abusive father from the home would have

caused the family financial hardship. Sce Greene, S88

I.Sd at 1018.

{EjJamiles often are more supportive of the

suspect than the child. For example, in

summarizing the findings of a survey of GOO

prosecutors, the American Bar Association

reported that “[wle were told time and time

again that nonoffending parents (most often

See Timothy Ross, Francesca Levy, and Robert Llope, Vera

Inst. of Justice, Improving Responses to Allegations of Severe

Child Abuse Results from the Instant Response Team Program

(2004) at 1 The arrival of a child protective worker may cause

a perpetrator to destroy evidence, influence responses trom

children, and otherwise hinder law entorcement investigations ”)

(Accessible at http://www veraorp download ‘files 135 responses

% 2 Bro%2 Balleyations’ 2Bot™ 2Behild® 2Babuse pdt (viewed Dx

cember 14, 2010)

mothers) are likely to pressure children to

recant, ciluny cconomic hardships onec the

lamuly bread-winner as removed from the

home or gatled.”

Collins, supra, at 155

Caving parents and other houschold members the

opportunity to taint the evidence that only the child

vietim can provide frustrates the objectives of both

child protective services and law enforcement person.

The purpose of an... interview outside the

presence of parents, guardians, or other per-

sons responsible for the care of the child is so

that welfare officials and poliee offieers may

obtain an untainted interview. The reasons

for anterviewmpy without parental consent

when a parentas the alleged abuser are obvi-

tls

kOS)| 459 N.W2d at 647. Moreover, & “child's feelings

of valnerability and pualt and his or her unwolling

ness to come forward are particularly acute when the

abuseris a parent.” Ritchie, 480 US. at 60

ln the anterest of protecting children and of

oblarnioag untamted evidence of abuse, many States

have codified the circumstances ander which children

suspected of bemng abuse vietiins may be mterviewed

without parental pernussin” Repoeding child-abuse

See States’ Cort Anu Bret, a &

mivestivgations an Indian country, Congress codified

that when authorities have “reason to beheve” that an

Indian child has been subjected to abuse, investigat-

ing agencies “shall be allowed to interview the child

without first obtamung the consent of the parent,

yuardian, or legal custodian.” 25 USC. §& 52060)

3%. oa child welfare agency can de-

termine that an exipvency exists be-

fore it interviews a child, it’ can

take the child into temporary cus-

tody and interview the child.

A requirement of demonstrating that exigent

circumstances justify mterviewing a child at school in

the absence of a warrant or parental consent 1s simi-

larly problematic. The Ninth Circuit: concluded that

an exigency exists when “the caseworker has ‘reason

able cause to beheve that the child is likely to experi-

enee serous bodily harm in the time that would be

»n<2 ’ ) ‘«

required to obtain a warrant Greene, 588 13d at

The Nonth Circuit concluded that Camreta’s interview of

4) three days after receipt of the report that she may have

been the vielinn of abuse rendered the “exupent circumstances”

exception inapplicable Greene, 588 BSd at 1030 0.17 The court

fruled to recopvmize, however, the staggennge workloads under

which most CPS caseworkers operate. According to the Child

Maltreatment Keport for 2008, CVS investasated approximately

Lf) gothhom child abuse referrals in fiscal year 2ZOOK, with

an averape response time between report and investigation of

45 days See http /www aet bhs pov/programs/eb/pubs/cmOs/

chapterZ htm (viewed December 14, 2010) With current

coonomuc Conditions deteriorating rapidly, state resources, for

(Continued on following: pape)

1OSO nil? (quoting Rogers vo. County of San Joaquin,

447 BSbd 124%, 1296 (9th Cir. 2007)). Tf the child

welfare agent is able to determine before speaking

with the child that the child will suffer harm before

prior judieial authorization can be obtained, the State

either through the child welfare apency or law

enforcement — can simply take temporary custody of

the child and conduct the interview under the auspi-

ces of its custody.” Doing so, however, is a far greater

iitrusion into the family than simply interviewing

the child. See Darryl H. vo. Coler, 801 F.2d 893, 902

(Il 1986) Crecopnizing that “extensive interrogations”

of families or “widespread inquiries of extra-familial

sourees” may inflict preater suyyma than the initial

intervention)

ID. It Is Reasonable to Interview a Sus-

pected Child-Abuse Victim at School.

By discouraging the use of at-school interviews,

the Ninth Cireuit has also affected the States’ ability

to effectively and safely interview suspected child-

abuse vietims an a familiar, neutral setting Inter-

views of children at school are advisable for a numbe

of reasons. Furst, children spend a significant amount

of time there, making it reasonably certain that an

investayating: child abuse and neplect reports are lkewise

evaporatiny. ‘The Gime that elapses between a report and an

iavestapation may therefore reflect a lack of resources rather

than a determination that no exigent circumstances exist

See States’ Cent Amico Bret mn lO

investigator can locate the child quickly. See Elena

Silva, Education Sector Reports, On the Clock: Re

thinkinp the Way Schools Use Time (2007) at 2 (noting

that children spend on average 6.5 hours per day at

school for 180 days out of the year)’ Second, the

child’s school hours wall often correspond to the

working hours for many mandatory reporters and

CPS and law enforcement investigators. Third, a

child's abuser as not hkely to be present at the sehool,

See Argument LA, supra (noting that most abusers

are parents or other housetold members), see also

Charol Shakeshaft, “lducator Sexual Abuse,” /lofstra

Horizons (Spring 2003) at 11 (noting that only a

“small percentage” of educators abuse children). An

in school interview therefore takes place away trom

the site of the abuse and outside the perpetrator’s

presence.

hinally, and most importantly, a sehool as a

fanuhar environment at which the child as likely to

feel safe and more relaxed than at a police station or

CPS offiee. The need for a safe environment in which

to disclose abuse is “erttically important to abused

children who have lost a sense of control over their

world and who have internalized the betrayal, power

lessness

and stigma often associated with mappro

priately disclosed child abuse.” Patton supra note 14,

at $15. States have also recognized the importance of

“ Accessible at http Awww educationsector orp/sites/defaull/

files/pubhications/OntheClock pdf (viewed December 14, 2010)

40)

interviewing children in a safe place by explicitly

authorizing interviewing children at school. See, e.g.,

44% Op Att’y Gen. &4 (Ariz. 1988) (“In some cases CPS

cannot adequately investigate and determine wheth-

er custody of a child is necessary without obtaming

information from the child, preferably in a neutral

apd non-threatening environment such as a school”);

see also Cal. Penal Code § 11174.3, NH. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 169-€:38, TV. ND. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 50-25.1-

O5(2)(c), -05.05; Okla. Stat. tit. LOA, & 1-2-105(18)01);

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.44.030012)(a); 89 Op. Att'y

Gen 49 (Utah 1990); see also Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,

Guidelines for Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse

and Neplect at 26 7

reports pdf (viewed December 14, 2010)

CONCLUSION

For the forepoings reasons, this Court) should

reverse the portion of the Ninth Circuit's judgment

that holds

Amendment

Petitioners violated the Fourth

Ternky GOopbpAkp

ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL

‘PAULA S. Bicker’

(Hike COUNSEL, Civit. APPEALS

‘Counsel of Record

KATHLEEN P. SWEENEY

DAWN R. WILLIAMS

Micienie Ro NIMMO

ASSISTANT ATTOKNEYS GENEKAL

Counsel for the State of Arizona

[Other Counsel Listed On Inside Front Cover]

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.