# Amicus Curiae Brief — Camreta v. Greene

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0596%3A32

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2011
- **Citation:** 563 U.S. 692

## Text

| ‘ Sade t dat © v

tietue
Nos. 09-1454 & 09-1478

: es

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

_ -—— @- -—

BOB CAMRETA,
Petitioner,
V.
SARAH GREENE, et al.,
Respondents

a oo

JAMES ALFORD,
Petitioner,

wa

SARAH GREENE, et al.,

Respondents
— e —_ ——E

On Writs Of Certiorari To The
United States Court Of Appeals
For The Ninth Circuit

— ¢ —------ - EE

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS (NACDL), CIVIL RIGHTS AND

LIBERTIES COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK
COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION (NYCLA),
AND CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

— — ——— ¢----—- >

MARK R. BKOWN DAVID M. PORTER
Counsel of Record Co-Chair, NACDA,
303 E. Broad Street Amicus Committee
Columbus, Ohio 43215 801 | Street, 8rd Floor
(614) 236-6590 Sacramento, California 95814
mbrown@law.capital.edu (916) 498-5700

si teat “COMLELAWRNIEF PRIKTINGCU 8225661 #@ «= |

OMCALL COLLECT +402) 542 2e il

_JAN 2% 2011

In The LEEICE OF SHE CLERK |

Page
pentane GE Seis SOWIE oo sci cins voce eccesnsceviespemeadenn ]
Bhatoment OF FMCG ...sicc DOT ee 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Pape
CASES
Arizona v. Gant, 540 U.S. 963 (2003)...................... 2200: 2
Barron v. Mayor of City of Baltimore, 32 U.S.

TG sities cones pcanctcsintcessebeinianinunendawendinenss ae
Board of Education of Independent School

District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County ov.

Barta, GOB UB. BEB (BBG S) .cccvcccsecesssscccecsecencsaves 26, 27
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) .............. 9
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz,

a ee ee ai diisascrentisetactav eA aticeguservassieas 15
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)... 1]
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool

Group, Inc., 5382 U.S. 424 (200)) ................... Suites
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nash-

ville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 129

ee I a keianns skcepeeesncaitdindtdsitnctieonncall
Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) .................... 8
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67

ID so iii ct dacudcucacnigncout dudtcepnassacmectamenrinas thie 6, 25, 27
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) ................-... 511
Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.S. 774 (2001) ...................... 2
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104

PID sinicxensebcceandeunss : pinta dwaienteanisapaseustiaeechate eusiannciae

Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.
UNITES SS Belt dh att hp ROOM Se NEE ae Seer ct a 9, 12, 35, 37

iV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
Greene v. Camreta, No. 05-6047, 2006 WI.

Se Ste TN I ciciscsnicsrpsscacieineLiusddarciiaasearoscnetsomsaoss oe
Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) 0000000000.0.....38
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)...0.0000000000.00.......37
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) ...00000000..... 30, 31
Immigration and Naturalization Service v.

Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) .........0........ cece cece ceeee eee 8
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)......... wteneusal 22, 23, 24, 38
Johnson v. Sackett, 793 So.2d 20 (Fla. App.
Kalmanson v. Lockett, 848 So.2d 374 (Fla. App.

PATS) «2.200000 ala hdiaanghaaseiennatnntcbalipouaaiae sipeaadiabakiaisanieall
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) ..................38
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452

Se GE NT cn cdensaciccusciindcotsdecnwatnsneeossucseiacuicntaictele 30
M.L.B. v. S.L.d.,519 US. 102 (1996).........................30
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) 200... 22
Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307

| Sees a tapsuctaicun te siaead eet Baakstes 8, 36, 37
McCabe v. Life-Line Ambulance Service, 77

raeey Gv Un I I he )
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) --.00..0.0.00000.... 29
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) ....000-...... 8
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 US. 385 (1978)... 85

New Jersey v. T'L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)......... passim

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) ................... 25
Newton v. Burgin, 414 U.S. 1139 (1974)... 35
Ornelas v. United States, 517 US. 690 (1996) _...... —
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US.
NEN tskneccsrondccnccoanss cceseietesneneccasteneiiles cnlacs 15, 38
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)....... 13, 28, 29
Pierce v. Soctety of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)........ 29
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)......... dass 2
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (19938) ......................... g
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) .............32
Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Red-
ding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009) «2000000000000... eaauaeame passim
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ......... o>
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)........... 26
Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896
GP csntadcacscess ase Rta benusenneshabegsceouiapadacetiacecscanaie nce
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 489
i WN RII scapes covet crores aa OS 26
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)... 6, 30
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968)........................... 11,12
Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)... 2
Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656
See ibonkatah sess ciesdad tesa torecsaeas ate eee) Face tee 26

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)................ 29, 30

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Pape

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544
Pins cain cndonti eu asus taensdrhdutlansacscacchedaahicdtnn 2k 8, 10, 11

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976)... passim
Villanova v. Abrams, 972 F.2d 792 (7th Cir.

WEE cuscaupcannuendenpasnndiciacadadiedtatanuctamee naa eee 8
Wallace v. Kern, 520 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1975)... 2
Walsh v. Erie County tepartment of Job and

Family Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N_D.

Ohio 2003) ............... peiadcsielenateaddmedatimucuscemticts Seconds 14
Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 3886 (5th Cir.

I ledidsteatecieeaiicsaMe acpi Nm aS ao ig)
Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)................ 28
FEDERAL STATUTES
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

(CAPTA), Pub. L. No. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4

RUNNION dicta tcstig ss Uecisisicctei ed vanamue.claedseasbacbidees asiciuenecmee ens 21
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act,

Pub. L. No. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500 (1980)... 21
Adoption and Safe Families Act, Pub. L. No.

105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (1997)..0000 See 21
at MI ED Coaeccee cack oes ta ee ee 4
STATE STATUTES
PBA. COMM BS BB-BG- RDG) « -accccccccccocccccccocaccocnssecccoceccs, 36

Ariz. Rev. Star. §§ 8-303 & 8-821... Lee a! 36

Vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
eee eS
oF ee Re GD RS See
COU, BRUY. SOUT. DS SUB. Be LD oonecncs ve cesccccucccceccceccces: 14
PA. CORROL. ERTAT. AR. © GSB o.onnccccccccccccccccessesccccccccsllt
oe Ee
RULES
oye ” Se Renee ae s Eaehidadeeane aaanicumanaee eee l
Sic Weis SE HI ices reg bien ag caoe cu ccsdencaceacectunaretoneuer tel l
MISCELLANEOUS
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ...........0.0.00000000. 15

Mark R. Brown, Rescuing Children from Abu-
sive Parents: The Constitutional Value of Pre-
Deprivation Process, 65 Onto Str. Lad. 918

Paul Chill, Burden of Proof Begone: The Perni-
cious Effect of Emergency Removal in Child
Protection Proceedings, 42 FAM. Cr. Rev. 540
(2004)....... ele ate diimonanitadercats Vcuiednbdesedi iaahcen we reonirecee

Howard A. Davidson, Child Protection Policy
and Practice at Century’s End, 33 Fam. 1.Q.

I os abis hie iascscaoesres tesa aentiinon cued passim

Sanford J. Fox, Juvenile Justice Reform: An
Historical Perspective, 22 STAN. L. Rev. 1187,
1190-91 (1971)

Vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Pape
Janet Gilbert, Richard Grimm & John
Parnham, Applying Therapeutic Principles to
a Family-Focused Juventle Justice Model
(Delinquency), 52 ALA. L. Rev. 1153 (2001)... 16
Jill Elaine Hasday, Parenthood Divided: A
Legal History of the Bifurcated Law of Pa-
rental Relations, 90 GEORGETOWN L.J. 299
(Rte res ASM RRR RR Re Rat tanto ns Mi 15, 18, 19, 20
4 Wayne R. LAFAVE, Searncit AND SEIZURE § 9.2
a eee ee eee bt hina ise 11
Wayne R. LAFAVE, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW
GEE SPUD vida cxncacsossentecces baer d et Pie te AMR Ee: ey E
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 13(a1), 9A U_L.A.
ERO RA ys Ee ap me pot Med Ptaemy Bey. & hee ea ANDRE. a
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 13(a2), 9A ULEL.A.
ee ditt Reducer uses STE PAT OS SES EEESY COR LDATS SMEs Aye es es
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 13(aX3), 9A ULL.A.
Be i iidveccncceccecenvenvss dete dadiias ounencnad Rie ladnnien des cadet 23
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 13(aX4), 9A ULL.A.
ERASE EY Pore epee aon mre Hop es SOONG leet AP SRR 23
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 14, 9A ULL.A. 22
SE iaccinaeadaitattichdvaen. aitnk asset susie avetnadussnbssichue aces acca 23
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 15(a\1), 9A ULL.A.
| SREP SAO nee wh teeth A a ea 23

Alexander A. Reinert, Public Interest(s) and
Fourth Amendment Enforcement, 2010 U.
FRR, a) PERRI Sept Dr fees Ocha ny Py Per 38

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
Douglas K. Rendleman, Parens Patriae: From

Chancery to the Juvenile Court, 23° 5S.
CAROLINA L. Rev. 205, 210 (1971)........0000..... eeanaes 15

Harold A. Richman, From a Radtwolopist’s Judp
ment to Public Policy on Child Abuse and
Neplect: What Have We Wrought?, 30 PEDIATRIC
RAmMoLoGcy 219, 220 (2000) .............. 20, 21, 29, 33, 34

William J. Stuntz, Warrants and Fourth Amend-
ment Remedies, 77 Va. lL. Rev. 8&1, &9]1
(1991) ede Spaced ces Sdieayvelewasaéecececacivisaese ae

Wilham Jo Stuntz, OJ. Sempson, Bill Clinton,
and the Transsubstantiwve Fourth Amend-
ment, 114 Harv. lL. Rev. $42, 848 (200) ) —....000000....38

Jacobus tenBrocek, California's Dual System of
Family Law: Its Oripin, Development and
Present Status, 16 STAN. L. Rev. 257 (1964) ....15, 16

Marvin Ventrell, From Cause to Professton: The
Development of Children Law and Practice,
eae eae, CAA. LAU, GEd CISD oc ccvescccccccccsces 16, 17, 18

United States Department of Health and
Human Services Administration for Chil
dren and Families, Appendix G: Highlights
of Child Maltreatment 2003, http://www.acf.
hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo03/appendix/
appendixy htm Cast visited January 4, 2011) ....... 33

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'

1. ‘The National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers “NACDIL”) is a non-profit organization with
direct national membership of over 10,000 attorneys,
in addition to more than 35,000 affiliate members
from all 50 states. Founded in 1958, NACDI is the
only professional bar association that’ represents
publi defenders and private criminal defense law-
yers at the national level. The American Bar Associa-
tion recognizes NACDL as an affilrated organization
with full representation in the ABA House of Dele-

pates

NACDL’s mission 1s to ensure justice and due
process for the accused; to foster the integrity, inde-
pendence, and expertise of the criminal defense
profession, and to promote the proper and fair adimin-
istration of criminal justice, including issues involv-
ing the Bill of Rights. NACDL files approximately 35
amicus curiae briefs cach year on various issues in
this Court and other courts. NACDI, has previously
filed amicus curiae briefs in this Court in cases, like

the present one, involving the validity of searches and

' Pursuant to Kule 47.6, counsel for amuct states that no
counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and
that no person other than amici, its members, or its counsel
made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission
of this brief. Kespondents have filed a global consent to amiuce
filianys, and letters of consent to the filing of this brief from
petitioners have been lodged with the Clerk of the Court pursu

ant to Rule 37.3

seizures under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g.,
Thornton vo. United States, 541 US. 615 (2004);
Arizona v. Gant, 540 U.S. 963 (2003), Florida. v.
Thomas, 532 U.S. 774 (2001).

2. The Civil Rights and Liberties Committee of
the New York County Lawyers’ Association
(“NYCLA”) was established in 1938. The Committee
sponsors forums, prepares reports and helps coordi-
nate pro bono projects on topics such as advocacy for
the indigent, education and employment for ex
offenders, collateral consequences of convictions, and
bullying in the schools. NYCLA, a 9,000-member bar
association, was established in 1908 with a_ policy
that any lawyer admitted to practice could join re-
gardless of race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

% The Center for Constitutional Rights is a
national non-profit legal, educational and advocacy
organization dedicated to advancing and protecting
the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitu-
tion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Founded in 1966, the Center has litigated numerous
landmark civil and human rights cases, many of
which have focused on ensuring the fair and humane
treatment for all persons involved in the American
criminal justice system. See, e.g., Rasul v. Bush, 542
U.S. 466 (2004), Wa'lace v. Kern, 520 I-2d 400 (2d
Cir. 1975).

3

STATEMENT OF FACTS’

Petitioner-Camreta 1s an investigator for the
Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS).
Petilioner-Alford is a deputy sheriff. Respondent,
Sarah Greene, is the mother of a nine-year-old girl
(S.G_) who was forcibly removed from her elementary
school and interrogated for two hours by Petitioners,
who admittedly did not have probable cause, a war-
rant, exigent circumstances, or Respondent’s consent.

Petitioners’ seizure of S-G. was based on a report
received by ODHS on or about February 19, 2003.
S.G Js father, Nimrod Greene, was arrested on Febru-
ary 12, 2003 for allegedly abusing another child, F.S.,
the seven-year-old son of a family that: employed
Greene. F.S.’s mother reported at this same time her
concern that Greene might be abusing SG.

Approximately four days after this report: was
made, Camreta and Alford went to S.G.’s elementary
school and had her removed from her classroom
Alford was armed and in uniform at the time of the
seizure. Petitioners isolated S5.G. in a private room at
the clementary school in order to question her. The
questioning lasted for two hours. At the end of the

Because the District Court pranted summary judgment to
Petitioners, Respondents’ version of the facts is taken as true
and all reasonable inferences are drawe in Kespondents’ favor.
See Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashuille and
Davidson County, Tennessee, 1295S. Ct. 846, 849 nn. 1 (2009).

* SG. and her younger sister, K.G., represented by their
mother, are also Respondents

questioning, SG. finally told Petitioners what they
wanted to hear — that Greene had abused her. Not-
withstanding the seriousness of this” revelation,
Petitioners allowed S.G. to return home to her father.

On March 6, 2003, Greene was charged with
abusing FS. and S.G. He was shortly released and
ordered not to have any contact with SG. or her
younger sister, K.G. On March 11, 2003, Camreta
obtained a court order placing S.G. and K.G. in foster
care, where they remained until March 31, 2003.

Given a lack of credible evidence that they had
been abused, the court on March 31, 2003 returned
S.G. and her sister to Respondent’s custody. Greene
was later tried for his alleged sexual abuse of }.S. and
S.G., but was not convicted. When the jury could not
reach a verdict, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge
based on the allegations involving F.S. Greene re-
ceived no jail time. The charges involving S.G. were
dismissed.

Respondent filed this action on behalf of herself
and S.G. against Petitioners (in their individual
capacities) under 42 U.S.C. § 19838, alleging, inter
alia, that S.G.’s seizure and two-hour interrogation
violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court
concluded that S.G. was seized, but concluded that it
was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. On appeal, Petitioners conceded that
S.G. had been seized. Contrary to the District Court’s
holding, the Ninth Circuit ruled that S.G.’s two-hour
detention and interrogation, with the assistance of

2

law enforcement and without a warrant, violated the
Fourth Amendment.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Petitioners conceded below that S.G’s two-
hour detention and interrogation by Petitioners was a
seizure. The Court of Appeals relied on this conces-
sion to hold that Petitioners violated the Fourth
Amendment. Petitioners cannot now change the
question presented to this Court to seek an advisory
opinion on whether S.G.’s seizure was simply justified
“at its inception.” A seizure’s being justified “at its
inception” does not mean that it satisfies the Fourth
Amendment. This Court has held on a number of
occasions that justifiable stops can mature with time
or intrusion into unconstitutional seizures. See, e.y.,
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). Safford Unified
School District No. 1 vo. Redding, 129 S.Ct. 2633
(2009), specifically ruled that a justifiable stop in
school will demand more as it becomes more intru-
sive. Consequently, even if S.G.’s warrantless stop
was justified at its inception (apd consistent with the
Fourth Amendment), its duration and = intensity
caused it to mature into an unconstitutional seizure.

2. History teaches that the Framers in the last
quarter of the Eighteenth Century would not have
countenanced government’s meddling with America’s
families. They would not have allowed government
officials to take children because of alleged abuse.

6

Simply put, the Founders did not consider raising
and rearing children government's business. Warrant-
less rescues based on claimed abuse would therefore
not have been tolerated. Nor did such a practice exist
at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
Grovernment’s concern with child safety did not coa-
lesce until the middle of the Twentieth Century
Indeed, the Nation’s most recent protective efforts
defined in terms of “dependency” and “neglect” did
not emerge until the 1960s. By this time, the Fourth
Amendment had been incorporated; it was under
stood that court orders and warrants were needed to
separate children from their parents.

3. Seizures at the hands of law enforcement
officers cannot be justified by “special needs.” New
Jersey v. TL.O., ABI US. 825 (1985), ts predicated on
school authorities attempting to maintain discipline
in schools. This Court has steadfastly refused to
extend this “special needs” exception to criminal law
enforcement. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532
U.S. 67 (2001). Further, even if the setzure here were
perpetrated by only protective service investigators, it
would still fall beyond the pale of 71.0. As made
clear in Redding, some seizures are simply too inva-
sive to rely only on reasonable suspicion. This is true
of familial mghts. America’s right to family ts one of
the oldest and most basic of constitutional freedoms.
It has routinely been afforded heightened procedural
protection. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645
(1972). Children and families deserve the utmost
constitutional protection.

7

4. Any distinction between the confines of “the
home” and “other” places, see, e.g., United States v.
Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), does not control. Familial
rights do not evaporate at a house’s’ threshold.
Although adults and juveniles can be arrested outside
their homes without warrants, this does not mean
that children can be taken into protective custody
without warrants just because they are in their yards
or at school. Dependency laws and delinquency laws
have different histories. While warrantless arrests
have historically been allowed outside homes, history
has not recognized that children can be taken from
parents under this same model. Further, because of
reporting requirements, broad definitions and the
lack of experienced investigators, the risk of error in
rescuing children from alleged abuse is large. Arrests
in public places for criminal behavior, though not
always correct, are not routinely wrong, either. The
opposite is true with removals, rescues and tempo-
rary seizures.

5 Petitioners have not demonstrated that the

basic warrant process facilitates child abuse. They
have produced no evidence showing that parents
routinely refuse to cooperate in child abuse investiga-
tions. Nor have they shown that children in states
that require warrants are subject to more abuse than
those in states, ike Oregon, that do not. Petitioners
have not established that warrants are unworkable or
place paralyzing costs on Oregon's protective services
system. Petitioners have therefore failed to prove that

8

their alternative ts absolutely necessary to protect
children. They have not satisfied strict scrutiny.

——ee @

ARGUMENT

1. S.G.’s Detention and Two-Hour Interroga-
tion Was a Full Seizure Within the Meaning
of the Fourth Amendment.

The meaning of “seizure” extends beyond formal
arrests. Even in the absence of handcuffs and book-
ings, a person is seized by police if “in view of all of
the circumstances surrounding the incident, a rea
sonable person would have believed that he was not
free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S.
544, 554 (1980).*

The Fourth Amendment, moreover, is not limited
to criminal suspects and police investigations. It
applies tn civil settings, see, e.g., Marshall v. Barlow’s,
Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978); Immigration and Natural
zation Service v. Delpado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984), and
restricts teachers’ actions, see, e.g., New Jersey ov.
TL.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), as well as those of protec
tive service investigators. See, e.g., Doe v. Heck, 327
F.3d 492, 510 (7th Cir. 2003). Whether a civil com-
mitment, see, e.g., Villanova v. Abrams, 972 F.2d 792,

* Although Justice Stewart's formulation in Mendenhall
only garnered plurality support, it has since been adopted by a
mayority. See, eg., Michivan vu. Chesternut, 486 US. 567, 573
(1988)

9

795 (7th Cir. 1992); McCabe v. Life -Line Ambulance
Service, 77 F.3d 540 (ist Cir. 1996), arrest, see, e..,
California v. Hodari D., A499 US. 621, 624 (1991),
search within a public school, see, e.g., Safford Unt-
fied School District No. 1 v. Redding, 129 5S. Ct. 2633
(2009), or removal from the home, see, e.g., Wernecke
vu. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2009); cf Reno v.
Flores, 5O7 U.S. 292, 317 (1993) (O'Connor, J., con
curring) (observing that children “have a protected
liberty interest in ‘freedom from institutional re
straints’”), the Fourth Amendment protects children.

Petitioners conceded below that S.G.’s detention
and two-hour interrogation was a “seizure” within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Cir-
cuit observed that “Camreta and Alford do not contest
the district court’s holding that the two-hour interview
of S.G. at her school was a seizure. We agree ... that
it was.” Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th
Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). The District Court, for
its part, apphed Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, to
conclude that, “in view of all of the circumstances
surrounding the incident,” Greene v. Camreta, No. 05-
6047, 2006 WL, 758547, at *3 (D. Ore. 2006), “SG.
was seized.” Id. The issue framed by the Court of
Appeals was therefore “relatively straightforward”:
“whether an in-school seizure and interrogation of a
suspected child abuse victim ts always permussible
under the Fourth Amendment without probable cause
and a warrant or the equivalent of a warrant, as
defendants maintain.” Greene, 588 F.3d at 1022
(emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit concluded that

10

warrantless seizures accompanied by lengthy interro,
vations in school settings are not “always permissi-
ble”; rather, when they involve police, lasts for two
hours, and satisfy Mendenhall’s definition of a sei-
zure, they are not. /d. at 1030.

Camreta argues that even though 5.G. was fully
seized — that is, even though S.G. was forcibly taken
from her classroom and interrogated for two hours
Petitioners’ actions were justified “at their inception”
by reasonable suspicion. See Brief for Camreta at 38-
40. The Ninth Circuit therefore was wrong in holding
that S.G’s two-hour ordeal violated the Fourth
Amendment. There is no need Camreta argues, nor
would it even be proper, to consider the length of
S.G.’s detention and the circumstances under which
she was interrogated. See Brief for Camreta at 40.

Camreta’s argument ignores both the Fourth
Amendment question put by Petitioners to this Court
and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Fourth
Amendment question presented included no language
limiting review to the validity of S.G.’s detention “at
its inception.” Petitioners broadly asked this Court to
review whether the Ninth Circuit’s Fourth Amend.
ment holding was correct. In the absence of limiting
language in their Petitions, and in light of the conces-
sions below, the question presented here necessarily
includes the totality of circumstances used by the
District Court to find that S.G. did not reasonably feel
free to leave within the meaning of Mendenhall.

11

Searches and seizures, of course, can be justified
at their inception and still violate the Fourth
Amendment. See 4 WAYNE LAFave, SEARCH AND
SEIZURE § 9.2 (2010). A valid stop under Terry v. Ohio,
$92 U.S. 1 (1968), for example, will mature into a
Fourth Amendment violation if it lasts too long or
becomes too invasive. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460
U.S. 491 (1983). That a student is justifiably seized
and searched under the logic of New Jersey v. TL.O.,
469 US. 3825 (1985), does not mean that she can be
forced to disrobe. See Safford Unified School District
No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009). Here, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that S.G.’s detention and
two-hour interrogation by Petitioners under all the
facts and circumstances violated the Fourth Amend-
ment. There was no need for it to go back to assess
whether 5S.G.’s stop was justified “at its inception.”
Regardless of whether it was, what happened over
the course of two hours violated the Fourth Amend
ment.”

* Camreta purposely confuses what is necessary with what
is suflicrent. Seizures necessarily must be justified at their
inception to survive the Fourth Amendment. See Mendenhall
However, this does not mean all seizures that are initially
justified are valid See Royer.

* Camreta may not even have standing to make this
“inception” argument before this Court. After all, success on this
newly framed, limited tssue would not alter the Ninth Circuit’s
ruling that S's two-hour seizure and interrogation violated
the Fourth Amendment. It would afford them no rehef See City
of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US. 95 (1983)

12

Petitioners argued below that warrantless sei
zures of students are always permissible. See Greene,
588 F.3d at 1022. The District Court agreed. The
Court of Appeals reversed. The question before this
Court is whether the Ninth Cireuit was correct. Are
warrantless seizures and interrogations of students
based on mere suspicion always permusstbhle? Are they
permissible when they include two hours of ques
tioning in the presence of law enforcement officers?
Amict agree with Respondents that they are not.

Il. History Supports the Conclusion that Peti-
tioners’ Warrantless Seizure of S.Ci. Violated
the Fourth Amendment.

At common law, “a peace othicer was permitted
to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or
felony committed in his presence as well as for a
felony not committed in his presence af there was
reasonable grounds for making the arrest.” United
States v. Watson, 423 US. 411, 418 (1976). This was
also “the prevathng rule under state constitutions
and statutes” when the Fourth Amendment was

Note that the Ninth Cireait did not rule that all semures
of students must be accompanied by warrants It did not decide
whether bref, Terry type stops of students require warrants (or
even require cause preater than reasonable suspicion). It did not
address whether lengthy interrogations by school authorities, or
social workers in the absence of law enforcement assistance,
require probable cause, let alone warrants

S|

adopted. Jd at 419. Because the Second Conyress
adopted this standard in the late Eighteenth Century
and “plamly decided apainst conditioning warrantless
arrest power on proof of exigent circumstances,” td. at
423, this Court in Walson assumed that the Kramers
of the Fourth Amendment could not have meant to
displace it. Warrantless felony arrests are thus pen-
erally acceptable under the Fourth Amendment — at
least when they oceur outside the home. Sce Payton v.
New York, 445 U.S. 573, 58% (1980).

History is plainly important to the Constitution’s
meanimy. If children were routinely being taken by
poverniment officials without warrants in the late
luighteenth Century, that would lend credence to the
claim that the Fourth Amendment was not meant to
prolubit these removals. The converse is also true; if
children were not being taken by government officials
at the founding, with or without warrants, one could
conchade that the Pramers did not mean to authorize
future warrantless seizures. Indeed, if familial rights
were considered inviolate at the Founding, one could
conclude that the Framers did not even consider
warrantless seizures of allepedly neglected children a

legal possibility.

Children of white, property-owning fathers (who
formed the Nation's original political community)
could not be taken by vovernment officials at the
Pounding, with or without prior judicial authoriza-
tion. Nor had such a practice emerped by the time the

hourteenth Amendment was adopted following the

14

Civil War. Taking children from parents because of
“dependency,” “neplect,” or “abuse” is a modern devel-
opment that emerged in the last quarter of the Twen-
lieth Century. Further, this most’ modern reform
effort, at its inception, assumed that warrants would
be required. Only within the last generation have
states, ike Orezon, moved toward a summary removal
model.” Petitioners essentially ask this Court to bless,
for the first time, a “social worker exception to the
strictures of the Fourth Amendment.” Walsh vo. Erie
County Department of Job and Family Services, 240
I. Supp. 2d 731, 746-47 (N_D. Ohio 2003) Crefusing to
recognize this exemption).

A. Children in the Eighteenth and Nine-
teenth Centuries Could Not Be Sum-
marily Taken From Their Parents By
Government Officials.

I. Founding to Civil War

A father’s right to the care, custody and control of
his children is of anqjent origin. Blackstone’s Com-
mentanes, published in 1765, observed that “‘[tlhe
anqgent Roman laws pave the father a power of life

and death over his children; upon this principle, that

Orevon law authorizes warrantless removals “|wjhen the
child’s condition or surroundings reasonably appear to be such
as to jeopardize the child’s welfare ” Or. Revo Strat
6 419B 1500) a) As the present case demonstrates, Oregon
officials also assume the authority to temporarily seize children
without obtamimy warrants

15
he who pave had also the power of taking away... .’”
Jill Klaine Wasday, Parenthood Divided: A’ Legal
History of the Bifurcated Law of Parental Relations,
90 GEORGETOWN LJ. 299, 510 (2002) (citing 1 WILLIAM
BLACKSTONE, COMMENTAKIES *440). Blackstone ob-
served that “children lived in ‘the empire of the
father’ until they reached twenty-one,” «dd. (citing
BLACKSTONE at 4441), and the father’s common law
“right to the custody, labor, and earnings of his minor
children” was sacred. Id. at 310. Government there-
fore had little Gf any) room to interfere with a father’s

mpht to raise his children.

Ilackstone’s common law deference to fathers, of
course, did not abolish slavery. Nor did it override
KMlizabethan “Poor Laws” that were enacted following
the disintegration of lngland’s feudal age. See Doug-
las R. Rendleman, Parens Patriae: From Chancery to
the Juventle Court, 23 S. CAKOLINA L. Rev. 205, 210
(1971). Not only did Poor Laws allow the imprison-
ment of poor parents, see Papachristou v. City of
Jacksonville, 405 US. 156, 161 n. 4 (1972) (describing
the history behind “Elizabethan Poor Laws”); Central
Virginta Community Collepe vo. Katz, 546 U.S. 356,
365 n. 4 (2006) (noting that lengland did not abolish
moprisonment for debt until 1869), they authorized
the removal of children from poor families. See
Jacobus tenBrock, Caltfornia’s Dual System of Family
Law: Its Origin, Development and Present Status, 16
STAN. L. Rev. 257, 279 (1964). Children from poor
families were impressed into the service of more

prosperous families. /d.

16

The American Colonies received and recognized
Blackstone’s description of familial rights. They also,
unfortunately, embraced England’s Poor Laws, just as
they recognized slavery. Church wardens and overseers
in the Colonies took poor children from their homes
and impressed them into the service of others. See
Marvin Ventrell, From Cause to Profession: The
Development of Children Law and Practice, 32-Jan.
Coto. LAw. 65, 66 (2003); tenBroek, supra, at 279.

States in antebellum America — free from the
constraints of the Fourth Amendment, see Barron v.
Mayor of City of Baltimore, 32 US. 243 (1833)
continued this practice. During the “House of Refuge
Movement” of the early Nineteenth Century, “delin-
quent” children were regularly snatched from streets
and sent to institutions. See Janet Gilbert, Richard
Grimm & John Parnham, Applying Therapeutic Prin-
ciples to a Family Focused Juvenile Justice Model
(Delinquency), 52 ALA. lL. Rev. 1153, 1158 (2001). The
onslaught of immigration forced States to forego
indentures in favor of reformatories and “houses of
refuge.” As an adjunct to “almshouses,” which con-
fined poor adults, these houses institutionalized poor
children. See Ventrell, supra, at 66"

New York’s law (enacted in 1824), for example, provided a
charter to the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delin
quents to erect a “House of Refuge” for minor vagrants, delin
quents and criminals) See Sanford J. Fox, Juvenile Justice
Reform: An Historical Perspective, 22 Svan. lL. Rev. 1187, 1190
(1971)

17

Their names notwithstanding, houses of refuge
were not designed to shelter or protect children; “the
undertaking was a matter of crime and delinquency
protection, aimed at saving predelinquent youth.”
Sanford J. Fox, Juvenile Justice Reform: An Histori.
cal Perspective, 22 STAN. L. Rev. 1187, 1190-91 (1971).
The Movement’s essential thesis was that poverty
correlated with “moral depeneracy.” Id. at 1198.
Kemoving poor children (and their parents) from the
population-at-large ridded society of actual or poten-
tial moral deviants, offered correction and advanced
crime control. /d. at 1207. It was no more benevolent
or benign than slavery, which remained a facet of
early American life.

2. Post-Civil War to Twentieth Century

Keform efforts geared toward protecting children

as opposed to protecting society from children — did
not emerge until afler the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The genesis of this” post-Civil War
reform movement can be found in two celebrated
child abuse cases tried in New York City in 1871 and
1874, respectively. See Ventrell, supra, at 66 (discuss-
ing cases involving Emily (1871, and Mary Ellen
(1%74)). Both cases involved children who had been
abused by their parents or guardians. Henry Bergh,
the founder of New York’s Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, used “a writ de homine
replegsando (similar to a writ of habeas corpus), . . . to
remove the girls and ultimately have them placed by
the New York Special Sessions Court in safe care. It is

1%

not clear under what authority the court acted; it
probably saw itself as exercising its equitable authority,
having taken criminal jurisdiction over the abusers.”
/d. These two cases spawned the creation of the New
York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
in 1874. Ie.

In the years that followed, more communities
followed suit. “Led by their wealthy private philan-
thropists, [these societies] amassed unprecedented
legal authority to scrutinize parental behavior, arrest
parents, and remove thousands of children.” Hasday,
supra, at 302. Most often, society agents simply
“followed children back to their homes,” id. at 307,
arrested their parents and seized the children. Id.
Because removals were parcel to the arrests of the
parents, they occurred without prior or accompanying
jyudicial process. Process came, if at all, as part of the
subsequent criminal proceedings against the par-
ents.” Even though the New York Reform Movement’s
mandate ostensibly was protection, it continued to
labor under a distinction between rich and poor.

” “Onee a child had been removed from her parents at the
New York socoety’s instization or with its help,” moreover, “the
courts were extremely reluctant to allow visitation or to release
the child, unless the society ayreed.” Jd at S08 In twenty years
(1881-1900), the New York society brought “52,860 criminal
cases, resulting i 49,330 convictions Ca 95.5% success rate)
Duriy the same period, ae society removed 90,078 children
with judicial approval. It exercised enormous discretion over
their placement, and put the overwhelming majority in institu
tions.” 1d at 307-08

19

“From the start, [the New York Society] focused on
families that had not been successful in the wage
labor economy, operating on the principle that this
economic failure had been caused by some crucial
moral or character flaw.” Hasday, supra, at 304-05.

Despite Elizabethan Poor Laws, the House of
Refuge Movement, and Henry Bergh’s private efforts
in New York," “lolver the entire course of the nine-
teenth century, common law courts and legal writers
in the United States remained highly respectful of
the control that parents, particularly fathers, exer-
cised over their households and children, and comsmiuit-
ted to doctrines that made legal intervention § to
counter parental excess or abuse very unltkely.” Id. at
311 (emphasis added) Even though slavery and Poor
Laws co-existed with these protective doctrines, the
understood rule was clear and inviolate: children
simply could not be taken with or without warrants
from citizens who formed America’s political commu-

nity.

At the close of the Nineteenth Century, Bergh’s move
ment ceded control to state and local administrative bodies See
Howard A. Davidson, Child Protection Policy and Practice at
Century’s End, 33 Fam. L..Q. 765, 766 (1999)

20

B. Twentieth-Century Reform Efforts Es-
tablished Governmental Programs to
Address Neglected and Abandoned
Children.

In the first quarter of the Twentieth Century,
several States passed “mothers’ pension laws.” See
Hasday, supra, at 348. These laws

authorized local governments to provide dt-
rect financial support to poor mothers, |and|
differed from the child cruelty societies in
two important institutional respects... .
First, [they] established completely govern-
mental programs. ... Second, and more cru-
cially, [they] primarily accomplished their
aims through the provision and refusal of
much needed financial aid, building on a
prowing consensus among reformers of the
period that this strategy was both more
effective, and more cost-efficient, than = re-
moving children from their parents’ custody.

ld By mid-Century “all states had government
agencies that provided statewide services to abused,
neglected, and abandoned children.” Davidson, supra,
at 767. This was) fueled by federal) spending
measures, such as the Aid to Dependent Children Act,
which was passed as part of the Social Security Act of
1935. See Hasday, supra, at 357.

The medical community took note of what mod-
crn Americans now know to be “child abuse” in 1946,
when Dr. John Caffey reported the case histories of
six “battered” children. See Harold A. Richman, From

21

a Radtologist’s Judgment to Public Policy on Child
Abuse and Neglect: What Have We Wrought?, 30
PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY 219, 220 (2000) The dialogue
that followed “began the modern era in our under
standing of child abuse and our response to it.” Jd. In
1961, the American Academy of Pediatrics organized
its first conference on “The Battered Child Syn-
drome.” Id. The first model child abuse law was
drafted at this conference. Jd. The following year, a
report by the same name was published in the Jour-
nal of the American Medical Association. Jd It
“brought the problem lof child abuse| to a wider
audience, not only in medicine but in government as
well....” Id. By 1966, “every state in the Union
passed a child-abuse reporting law.” Id."

Once abuse laws and reporting requirements
were in place, the problem turned to process: how
could local authorities respond to reported instances
of abuse? Should children be followed home and
kidnapped following the arrest of their parents, as
was true with the private societies that emerged in
the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century? Should

‘In 1974, Congress enacted the Child Abuse Prevention

and ‘Treatment Act (CAPTA), Pub L. No. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4
(1974), which marked “its first direct action to address child
maltreatment within the home ” Davidson, supra note 13, at
776 ln 1980 and 1997, Congress passed additional spending
measures, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Pub
lL. No 96-272, 94 Stat. 500 (1980), and the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, Pub Lo No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (199%), respec
tively It has never addressed the problem presented here

22.

discretion be left with church wardens and overseers
to indenture children, as was true in the late EKight-
eenth Century?

While the first half of the Twentieth Century saw
little change in the procedures that accompanied the
institutionalization of children (and incarceration of
adults), the incorporation of the Bill of Rights — in
particular, the full application of the Fourth Amend-
ment to state and local activities, see, e.g., Mapp v.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 6438 (1961) — caused dramatic proce-
dural changes throughout the States in the second
half of the Century. Before 1967, juveniles were
commonly subjected to detention without procedural
protections. See in re Gault, 387 US. 1, 11 n7
(1967). As explained in Gau/t, 387 US. at 15, “[t}he
early reformers were appalled by adult procedures
and penalties, and by the fact that children could be
given long prison sentences and mixed in jail with
hardened criminals.” These early reformers thus

discarded the “apparent rigidities, technicalities, and
harshness which they observed in both substantive
and procedural criminal law” for juvenile delinquents.
Id. Vhey left juveniles with promises of compassion
and fairness as opposed to process.

The Court in Gault, 387 US. at 18, rightly saw
through this guise: “Juventle Court history has again
demonstrated that unbridled) discretion, however
benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substi-
tute for principle and procedure.” The Court reminded
modern Americans of what the Founders knew well -

23

governmental claims of compassion and protection
are “poor substitutels| for principle and procedure.”

Following Gault’s landmark holding, the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
presented its recommendation for implementing the
changes needed to America’s juvenile justice system
in 1968. The result was the Uniform Juvenile Court
Act of 1968 (“the Model Juvenile Court Act” or “Mode!
Act”); this model law purported to implement changes
needed in America’s juvenile justice system to comply
with the Constitution. It distinguished between
procedures that should be followed with dependent
children and those that should be followed with

i

delinquents: a child could only be “taken into custody”
“pursuant to an order of the court under this Act,”
Model Juvenile Court Act, § 13(a)l), 9A ULLA. 22
(1968), or “pursuant to the laws of arrest.” /d.

§ 13(aX 2).

The Model! Act provided exceptions for a “child | |
suffering from illness or injury or || in immediate
danger from his surroundings,” as well as a child who
“has run away from his parents, guardian, or other
custodian.” dd. § 13(aX3) & (4). Even then the Model
Act required that the child be immediately returned
to its parents “upon their promise to bring the child
before the court when requested,” rd., § 15(a)(1),
unless the child’s parents presented a flight risk. /d
§ 14. The Model Act expressed a clear preference for
prior judicial involvement and supervision in depend
ency and abuse proceedings. Unilateral, summary
seizures were only permissible in emergencies, and

24

even then the Model Act required the tmmedtiate
return of children to their parents.

+ + ¢

Three important conclusions can be drawn from
this historical outline: First, the Framers would not
have countenanced government’s meddling with
families. Never would they have allowed governmen-
tal avents to take their children because of alleged
“abuse.” Simply put, the Founders did not consider
raising and rearing children government’s business.
Warrantless rescue based on claimed abuse was not
tolerated.

Second, the Drafters of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment would not have tolerated governmental inter-
ference. Private concerns over “child abuse” did not
arise until after the Civil War. Government did not
embrace this end until the beginning of the Twentieth
Century. When this happened, government officials
were not yet constrained by federal constitutional
norms. As a constitutional matter, local authorities
during the first half of the Century were free to

exercise “unbridled license” over children — and they
did (as noted in Gault).

Third, the most modern reform eftort Which
vastly expanded notions of abuse, neglect and de-
pendence -— emerged with knowledge of the con-
straints of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Model Act of 1968 followed on the heels of Gau/t
and codified this Court’s post-incorporation holdings
As a result, the Model Act stated that children cannot

5 -

ww)

be taken “into custody” without court orders. Society's
most recent “child protection” system was predicated
on this assumption. By 1968, it was clear that chil-
dren could not be routinely taken from their parents
without judicial authorization.

lil. No Recognized Exception Justifies Dis-
pensing With Warrants When Seizing Chil-
dren.

Circumstances sometimes excuse compliance
with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement
“Closely regulated” businesses and industries, for
example, are not protected from warrantless searches.
See, e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987).
Today, these exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s
probable cause and warrant requirements are de
scribed as “special needs.” Critical to this exception is
the intersection of a diminished expectation of privacy

.

and a governmental objective “other than the normal
need for law enforcement.” Ferguson vu. City of
Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 75 n. 7 (2001). Where indi-
vidual expectations of privacy are high, this exception
rarely applies. And where government uses crime.
control laws as leverage, or employs criminal law
enforcement personnel, it must fully comply with the
Fourth Amendment’s basic requirements

A. T.L.O. Does Not Control.

Because the seizure in the present case occurred
at S.G.’s school, Petitioners argue that New Jersey v

nA 8)

TL.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), controls. The Court’s
holding there, however, was premised not on the
student’s mere presence in the school; rather, the
Court relied on the fact that the school authorities
conducted the search to maintain school discipline.
LL.O. cannot be read to award protective service
investigators and police officers similar authority
simply because a child is temporarily on school prop-
erty.

TL.O., like all special needs cases, made clear
that it was not to be read broadly “Special needs”
does not mean law enforcement. For example, while
governmental agents are subject to warrantless (even
suspicionless) drug testing, see Skinner vo Railway
Labor Executives Ass’n, 489 US. 602 (1989); Treasury
Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989): and
students who participate in extra-curricular activities
can likewise be tested, Board of Education of Inde
pendent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomite Coun
ty vu. Marls, 536 US. 822 (2002), the great majority of
America’s citizenry remains protected by the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant) requirement. See, ee,
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771-72 (1966)
The Court in Karls emphasized that the testing
program at issue was “not in any way related to the
conduct of criminal investigations... .” Jd at 82Y.
The test results were “not turned over to any law
enforcement authority,” nor would they “lead to the
imposition of discipline or have any academic conse
quences.” Jd. at 833. The school district’s concern was

27

sunply “detecting and preventing drug use amony its
students.” ld. at #25

Ferpuson vo. City of Charleston, 5382 US. 67
(2001), stands in stark contrast to Marls and the
exception at represents Ferpuson addressed a public
hospitals use of dray testing to deter preynant wom-
cn from using crack cocaime. Urine sercens were
performed on maternity patients and test results
were used to leveraye patients mto formal treatment
programs. Jd) at 72. Those who refused were referred
to law enforcement officials for prosecution. Jd. at 72-
75 Potential charges imeceluded child) neglect and
unlawful delivery of a controlled substance to a child.

ld

Because the proyram was not “divorced from the
State’s interest in law enforcement,” i at 79, but
instead used “law enforcement to coerce the patients
info substance abuse treatment,” 1d. at &O, the Court
concluded that it did not qualify for treatment under
the specal needs exception. Mven though the hospi
tals “benign” motives meladed protecting children,
id at &5, conecdedly “a serious problem,” 1d. at 86,
the propram’s “pervasive involvement” with law
enforcement rendered at unqualified for the special
needs exception. “|The gravity of the threat alone
cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what
means law enforcement officers may croploy lo pursue
a piven purpose.” fd) at 46. As pointed out by Justice
Kennedy, 532 US. at &% (Kennedy, J., concurring):
“None of fthe Courts} spectal necds precedents has

canetioned the routine meclausion of law enforcement

24

to implement the system desiyned for the special

needs objectives.”

Bk. Familial Privacy Is Fundamental.

ven assuming that the present case were di
vorced from law enforcement, the special needs
exception would still not apply. S-G.’s seizure and
interrogation were too intrusive. The Court ruled in
Safford Unified School District No. 1 vu. Redding, 129
S Ct. 263% (2009), that students suspected of violat-
mage school rules could not be strip-searched pursuant
to ThO?’s reasonable suspicion standard, even
though the school was attempting to maimtaim order
and police were not involved. ‘The “patent intrusive
ness” of such a search, 129 S. Ct. at 2641, the Court
concluded, demanded “distinet clements of jyustifica-
tion” dd Redding makes clear that individual privacy
concerns sometimes overcome relaxed special needs
standards. Searching a purse is one thing, see T'L.0.;

stripping a student is another. See Redding.”

’ayton vo. New York, 445 US. 574, 588 (1980),
bikewise ruled that fundamental privacy interests
canmot be trusted to executive heense. Watson, of
course, had ruled that arrests outside the home could

proceed without warrants because historically that

fideed, some bodily satrusions are so invasive that they
are not allowed to proceed even when police have fully complied
with the Fourth Amendment's terms and obtamed a warrant
See, op, Winston vo lave, 4700S 753, 766 C1985)

29

was the rule. But this was also the common law rule
for felony arrests inside the home. See Payton, 445
US) at GIG (White, J., dissenting) Stall, the Court
reyected this histoneal aryument in favor of protecting
privacy: “an entry to arrest and an entry to search for
and to seize property implicate the same interest in
preserving, the privacy and the sanctity of the home,
and justify the same level of constitutional protec-
tion.” Id. at 58S.

‘This same rationale applies to familial privacy
inside and outside the home. One’s right to family
cannot depend on location. It follows the family.
Lengthy seizures and interrogations of young chil-
dren about sexual matters and family intimacies
jeopardize familial privacy whether conducted inside
or outside the home. The mapnitude of these inva-
sions is nol just spatial, it is, as explained in Redding,
physical, emotional and psychological. An interroga-
tion of this nature may very well forever define the
family. Its impact not only falls on “the family’s view
of itself,” but also “on the view of the family held by
those consulted in the investigation{.)” Richman,

supra, al 223.

This Court has lony recognized a basic, funda
mental right to raise children. See Meyer v. Nebras-
ka, 262 U.S. 890 (1925), Prerce vo Society of Sisters,
264% U.S. 510 (1925). In Troxel vo. Granville, 530 U.S
57, 66 (2000), the Court stated that “it cannot now
be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment protects the fundamental right

of parents to make decisions concerning the care,

30

»

custody, and control of their children.” These rights,
the Court observed, are “perhaps the oldest of fun-
damental liberty interests recoynized by this Court.”

Id. at 6D.

Heightened procedural protections, moreover,
have routinely been extended to families. In Stanley
v0. Hlinots, 405 US. 645 (1972), for example, the Court
ruled that a father (as well as a mother) “as a matter
of due process” is “entitled to a hearing on his fitness
as a parent before his chi dren were taken from
him... .” dd. at 647. This logic naturally extends to
both temporary and permanent takings: “Surely, - . .
if there is delay between the doing and the undoing
petitioner suffers from the deprivation of his children,
and the children suffer from uncertainty and disloca-
tion.” Id. (emphasis addea}. See also Lassiter v. De
partment of Social) Services, 452 US. 18% (1981):
Santosky vo. Kramer, 455 US. 745 (1982). M_L.B. ov.
SL, 519 US. 102 (1996).

(. Lidster’s Focus Was Brief Encounters.

Recognizing: the stramed analogy to 711.0. and
other special needs precedents, Petitioners rely on
Mlinows vo. Ladster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004), for support.
There, the Court approved brief stops of motorists at
highway checkpoints in order to elicit information
about a ermme that had occurred in’ the vicinity.
ladster hardly helps Petitioners’ case. ‘The Court in
ludster repeatedly relied on the brevity of the stops
to support them validity. See, eg., 540 US. at 424

$1

(distinguishing the case as involving “bmef, infor-
mation-secking highway stops”) They were not
desipned to last more than a few minutes. ‘The Court
did not hold that law enforcement officers may seize
adults (et alone young children) without probable
cause in order to engage in hours-long questioning.
Lidster, moreover, hinged on information-seeking
stops in non-coercive and non-invasive environments.
fd at 425 Cinformation-secking highway stops are
less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive”)
Here, S.G., a nine-year-old pirl, was moved, isolated
and interrogated for two hours. Iler seizure was far
from a brief, casual, information-seeking stop.

IV. Familial Rights Do Not Evaporate at the
Hlome’s ‘Threshold.

Iynoring familial rights’ long pedipree, the Solici-
tor General argucs that parents and children do not
enjoy the protections envisioned by warrants when
they are outside their homes. See Brief for the United
States at 22. After all, the Solicitor General notes, the
Fourth Amendment allows arrests outside the home

without warrants. [d.

The Solicitor General is correct; jyaveniles can be
arrested without warrants under the logic of Watson
when they are outside their homes. But this does not
mean Chat young toddlers and children of tender
years can be summarily seatched from sidewalks and
schools. It cannot mean that povernment ayents can

constitutionally wait at the curb for school-age

32
children to emerge, and then spirit them away for
incommunicade interrogation. If this were the case,
then the constitutional right to “family” would mean
nothing more than the right to stay home.

As the framers of the Model Act of 1968 well
knew, removal and arrest are different. ‘They devel-
oped along different historical paths. ‘They advance
different ends. Delinquent children and dependent
children, in short, are different.

“Juvenile delinquents” present a small class of
children. This class is necessarily limited to minors
who have matured beyond tender years; young chil-
dren simply cannot commit crimes or be delinquent
Further, Due Process demands that criminal statutes
be clear, see, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 1380S. Ct
28496 (2010), and focus on action rather than mere
status." See, ee, Robinson v. California, 370 US
660 (1962).

In contrast, the class of potentially “dependent”
children is huge. It encompasses all children in Amer
ica. Infants, toddlers and young school-age children,
hike SG.

of potential “status” victims, coupled with mandatory

, are all potential targets. ‘This vast universe
reporting requirements, vague understandings of

i
Although ermuominal laws sometimes punish maction when

a duty ts present, the vast majority focus on voluntary acts See
WAYNE Ro LAFAVE, SupsTantivk CRIMINAL LAW § 6.2 (2010) This
further limits the scope of the net cast by Watson's law of arrest
and mcreases the accuracy rate

33

“neglect,” and undertrained tnvestizators produces a
significant error rate within the child protection
system. Harold Richman, Director of the Chapin Hall
Center for Children at the University of Chicago,
lamented ten years ago that the definition of child
abuse has “preatly expanded” since the early 1960s,
bringang ina large percentage of cases that fall inte a
“troublesome” pray area.” Richman, supra, at 221.
Simple neglect and emotional maltreatment, Rich-
man explains, “account for almost 60% of all mal-
treatment.” /d."" The “most startling fact about child-
abuse reporting numbers, beyond their size,” Rich-

--

man reported in 2000, “is that most of the reports
remain unsubstantiated — that is, they are not sub
stantiated after caseworker investigation.” Id at 22:

lloward Davidson, Director of the American Bar Assocta
tion's Center on Children and the Law, has echoed this pot
“lal single incident of a child scemungly left unattended by
parental or adult supervision, or when, in an instant, a parent
has ‘lost their cool’ and hit their child, are frequent bases for
making reports that cause fullbseale 0.) tnvestysations” Da
vidson, supra, at 774 “By far,” Davidson has noted, “the majority
of reports of child maltreatment do not allege that children are
in semous and imminent danger...” /d Davidson therefore
concludes that “it is time to seriously consider changes in the
fundamental ways in which child abuse and neglect are defined
vd responded to” ld

“ “Fmends, neywhbors, and relatives” are responsible for
gust under one half of these reports See the United States
Department of Health and Human Services Administration for
Children and Famihes, Appendix Go tHlighlphts of Child Mal
treatment 20038, http //www.act hhs gov/proprams/cb/pubs/ewoO./
appendix/appendixg htm (last visited danmuary 4, 2011)

34

On average, “60% to 65% of [the] cases flare! not
substantiated.” ld) (emphasis added). Even after
initial screening and investigation, this preponder
ance of misinformation has still translated into an
unacceptably large percentage of false positives. One
authority estimates the percentage of wrongful
rescues and removals (not counting temporary set
zures, as here) at over 839%. Paul Chill, Burden of
Proof Begone: The Pernicious Effect of Emergency
Removal in Child Protection Proceedings, 42 FAM. Cr.
Rev. 540, 541 (2004).

Third, protective service investigators are not
experts. “In most states, a bachelor’s degree in any
subject is all that is required to become a public child
protective service (CPS) caseworker.” Howard A
Davidson, Child Protection Policy and Practice at
Century’s End, 33 Fam. L.Q. 765, 772 (1999). “After
hiring, CPS pre-service trang is too often minimal.
Pay seales are often very low, morale is frequently

poor, and stall turnover is constant.” fa.

Crime control and dependency are, for all of these
reasons, quite different. Extending the distinction
between home and public to protective service case
workers risks, to put it bluntly, disaster: Large num
bers of innocent children will be swept into the net of
false positives. Families will be destroyed. At. bare
minimum, any clarm Wafson’s distinction is necessary
to protect children must be seriously questioned. It
may harm as many children as it helps

3h

Vv. Summary Seizures Are Not Necessary to
Achieve a Compelling Interest.

The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
does not facilitate child abuse. It does not prevent
protective service tnvestigators and law enforcement
officials from investipating, nor does it stop teachers
from questioning children once inside their schools. It
simply injects a judicial, neutral decision-maker
between executive license and familial integrity.
Before government reaches beyond teaching and
beyins investigating, it should obtain a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement
simply demands that, in the absence of exigent cir
cumstances,’ see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 US. 885, 394
(1978), government officials obtain authorization
from a neutral, detached magistrate before seizing
children. It injects objective decision-making between
government’s uobridled discretion and familial intes
rity If a judge or magistrate agrees, ex parte, that
probable cause exists to believe a child is, has been,
or will be abused, the child can be seized and ques
tioned. See Newton v. Burgin, 414 US. 1139 (1974)
If not, the child and her family are protected from

In the present case, time and exipencies were never a
problem. As pounted out by the Court of Appeals, Petitioners had
several days to seek a warrant. 588 BF aédat 1lOS0 n 17. Petitroners
allowed Si) to return to her home Warrants, of course, can be
obtained telephonically, see, eg, Aalmanson vo Lockett, 848
So 2d $74,379 (Fla App 2003), and protective service unvestipa-
tors accordingly enjoy a Large measure of flexibility

36

unauthorized and unnecessary intrusions. Children
are protected on both sides of the divide.

Petitioners and their amici have presented no
empirical evidence to support the charge that war-
rants impede protective services. This Court in
Marshall v. Barlow's, I[nc., 486 US. 3807, 316 (1978),
reyected a similar claim by federal inspectors: “We are
unconvinced —.. that requiring warrants to inspect
will impose serious burdens on the inspection system
or the courts, will prevent inspections necessary to
enforce the statute, or will make them less effective.”
In the absence of “any widespread pattern of refusal,”
i, the Court properly assumed that “the great
majority 2... can be expected ino normal course to
consent to inspection without warrant.” Ja.

Because Petitioners here present no evidence of a
“widespread pattern of refusal’ on th > part of uncoop
erative parents, nor is there any evidence of wide
spread investigative failures caused by warrants,
Petitioners’ claims must be taken with a large prain
of salt. Many states continue to operate child abuse

. . is . .
systems requiring warrants,” yet Petitioners have

"See ex, Ata Cope §$ 12-15 125(a) (requiring = prior
yudicial authorization except when immediate removal ts
“naecessary’), AkiZ. Revo Spar. §§ 8 305 & 8 B21 (same); GA Cope
ANN. § 15-11-45 (same) ND Centr. Cope § 27-20-13 (same); PA
Conso.. Svar ANN. § 6424 (same); Wis) Srar. § 48. 19¢d) (same)
See penerally Mark Ro Brown, Rescuing Children from Abusive
Parents’ The Constitutional Value of Pre Deprivation Process, 65
Quo Sv lL. d 913, 915 19 (2004)

37

pointed to no comparative data demonstrating abuse
in these states is higher (or lower). There ts absolutely
no suggestion of any correlation between States’
requiring warrants and increased child abuse.
Petitioners eflectively admit here that they did
not have probable cause to seize SG." “Hence,” the
argument poes, “we could not have investigated
allegations agaist S-G.’s father if we were required
to obtain a warrant.” Of course, no one knows whether
Petitioners could have obtained a warrant here, since
they never asked.” Notwithstanding their concession,
it is by no means clear that investigators in simular
situations must necessarily be denied) warrants
Under J/dinots vo. Gates, 462 US. 213 (1983), courts
look to the totality of circumstances in order to assess
probable cause.’ Probable cause, like reasonable
suspicion, is a “fluid concept.” Cooper Industries, Ine
v Leatherman Tool Group, inc., 532 US. 424, 4386

(ZOOL) “TO}ne determination will seldom be a useful

i

Although Alford claimed in the Court of Appeals that he
had probable cause to seize Si, see Ninth Circuit: Brief for
Alford at pp 26-28, he has not in this Court) Instead, his (and
Camreta’s) position is that reasonable suspicion should suffice
Camreta has never claumed probable cause existed

“There was no finding below that Petitioners did not have
probable cause The Court of Appeals ruled only that “applying
the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements, the decision to
seize and interrogate SG in the absence of a warrant, a court
order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was uncensts
tutional” 588 FSd at 1080 (footnotes omitted)

In coval settings this standard may be relaxed See, ex ,
Marshall v Barlow's, Inc., AS6 US. 307, 320 (19738)

3d

‘precedent’ for another’” Ornelas vo United States,
517 US. 690, 698 (1996).

Petitioners’ demand for a lower standard is
premised less on a desire to protect children than to
win unbridled discretion. History teaches, however,
that license breeds abuse. See, e.g., Aolender vo Law
son, 461 US. 352, 358 (1983) (warning that “virtually
complete discretion in the hands of the police” cannot
be tolerated); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville,
AOS US. 156 (1972); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408
US. 104, 108-09 (1983). History teaches that “unbri
dled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is
frequently a poor substitute for principle and proce
dure.” Gault, 8387 US. at 18

The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement
reduces abuse by minimizing errors. See Wilham J.
Stuntz, Warrants and Fourth Amendment Remedies,
77 Va. L. Rev. 881, 891 (1991); William J. Stuntz,
O.J. Sunpson, Ball Clinton, and the Transsubstantive
Fourth Amendment, 114 Harve L. Reve 842, 8148
(2001); Alexander A. Reinert, Public interest(s) and
Fourth Amendment Enforcement, 2010 U. Tu. L. Rev.
1461, 1498) Filtering child abuse reports through
neutral magistrates is even more productive in the
protective services context, because social workers
tend to be less trained, see Davidson, supra, at 772,
and more immune than police: See, eg, fofimson v
Sackett, 793 So 2d 20, 24 (Fla. App. 2001) (holding
that social workers have absolute immunity under
state law), Hoffman vo Harris, 511 US. LOO C194)

(Thomas, <., dissenting from denial ot certiorari)

3g

(discussing federal immunities available to social
workers). Under circumstances like these, requiring
antecedent warrants is very lkely the only effective
deterrent. See Stuntz, Warrants and Fourth Amend
ment Remedies, supra, at 909.

— — ee

CONCLUSION

Should the Court determine that review remains
appropriate in this case, the Court of Appeals’ conclu-
sion that S.G.’s two-hour seizure and interrogation
violated the Fourth Amendment should be affirmed

Respectfully submitted,

Mankk R. BROWN

Counsel of Record

303 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(G14) 286-6590
mbrown@law.capital.edu

Set) ie an

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0596%3A32. Public record. Not legal advice.