Source: cases/42usc1983/f3d-189-808-calabretta-v-floyd.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_189/0808_01/index.html
Anderson requires more particularized analysis, to determine whether, in these particular circumstances, notably the absence of emergency, a reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.
The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.
In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry.
We conclude that on appellants’ first issue, whether they were protected by qualified immunity regarding their coerced entry into the Calabrettas’ home, the district court was right. They were not.
The strip search cannot be separated from the context in which it took place, the coerced entry into the home.
An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold.
This case is like Good, not Darryl H.
White v. Pierce County establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.
This was not a case where the officials coercing entry into the home recognized some special exigency creating imminent risk to the child.
The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children.
A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.
casedsl 1
case /f3d/189/0808-01
name Calabretta v. Floyd
cite 189 F.3d 808 (1999)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
date 1999-08-26
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_189/0808_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl sha1=710763cca03a42525c6128567a82449eaee932f1 chars=38420
law 42usc1983
role applied
posture civil; family sues social worker and police officer over child-abuse investigation; interlocutory appeal by the two individual defendants from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity
result claimant-won
defense qualified-immunity : not-satisfied [law]
variant clearly-established/warrantless-home-entry-child-welfare-check-no-exigency
party social worker Floyd and Officer Schwall
count coerced entry into the home
fact @2083..2232 [cuts-against] | On November 10, fourteen days after the call and ten days after the first visit, the social worker returned to the Calabretta house with a policeman.
fact @2847..2961 [cuts-against] | Mrs. Calabretta did not open the door, and said she was uncomfortable letting them in without her husband at home.
fact @2962..3108 [supports] | The police officer had the opinion that in any check on the welfare of children “there is an exigent circumstance” so no search warrant is needed.
fact @9191..9367 [cuts-against] | The social worker and her department delayed entry into the home for fourteen days after the report, because they perceived no immediate danger of serious harm to the children.
fact @14591..14739 [cuts-against] | The only reason the social worker and police officer did not seek a search warrant was that their subjective opinion was that they did not need one.
rule @10962..11211 | Anderson requires more particularized analysis, to determine whether, in these particular circumstances, notably the absence of emergency, a reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.
rule @11696..11951 | The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.
held @11212..11298 | In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry.
held @25634..25831 | We conclude that on appellants’ first issue, whether they were protected by qualified immunity regarding their coerced entry into the Calabrettas’ home, the district court was right. They were not.
gloss Precedent about police (White v. Pierce County) clearly establishes the rule for social workers too; no child-welfare or administrative-search exception to the warrant requirement absent exigency; state regulations did not authorize forced entry.
defense qualified-immunity : not-satisfied [law]
variant clearly-established/strip-search-of-child-during-unlawful-home-entry
party social worker Floyd
count strip search of the three-year-old
fact @4548..4701 [cuts-against] | While the mother was still with the policeman in the other room, the social worker told the twelve year old to pull down the three year old girl’s pants.
fact @5768..6013 [cuts-against] | The three year old was screaming and fighting to get loose, the mother looked at the social worker to see whether she would relent, but she did not, and the mother pulled down the three year old’s pants in obedience to the social worker’s order.
fact @29757..29894 [cuts-against] | The twelve year old had already explained away the screaming and told the social worker that the children were not abusively disciplined.
fact @35407..35684 [cuts-against] | By the time the social worker forced the mother to pull down the child’s pants, the investigation had contracted to the social worker’s personal opinion that any discipline of a child with an object must be against the law, and her puzzling mention of the family’s religiosity.
rule @33829..33939 | The strip search cannot be separated from the context in which it took place, the coerced entry into the home.
rule @33940..34047 | An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold.
held @33791..33828 | This case is like Good, not Darryl H.
gloss No in-circuit case on point; out-of-circuit authority (3d and 10th Cir.) plus the taint of the unlawful entry defeat immunity. The injured interest is framed chiefly as the mother's dignity and authority in her home, not the toddler's bodily privacy.
element deprivation.fourth-amendment : satisfied [triable]
variant warrantless-home-entry/child-abuse-investigation-on-weak-anonymous-tip
count coerced entry into the home
fact @784..899 [cuts-against] | The caller said that she was once awakened by a child screaming “No Daddy, no” at 1:30 A.M. at the Calabretta home.
fact @1735..1911 [supports] | The children were standing at the door with their mother, and the social worker noted on her report that they “were easily seen and they did not appear to be abused/neglected.”
fact @3278..3376 [supports] | Appellants concede that for purposes of appeal, the entry must be treated as made without consent.
fact @14159..14393 [supports] | By contrast, in the case at bar, the report did not describe any evidence of physical abuse, and the social worker and police officer did not perceive any danger of injury to the children or loss of evidence if they secured a warrant.
rule @23173..23474 | White v. Pierce County establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.
held @23034..23172 | This was not a case where the officials coercing entry into the home recognized some special exigency creating imminent risk to the child.
gloss Merits and immunity are merged: on plaintiffs' version (non-consent conceded for the appeal) the entry violated the Fourth Amendment; consent remains disputed for trial.
element deprivation.fourth-amendment : satisfied [triable]
variant strip-search/child-examined-for-bruises-without-reasonable-suspicion
count strip search of the three-year-old
fact @6014..6076 [supports] | There were no bruises or marks on the three year old’s bottom.
fact @29636..29756 [supports] | The social worker had noted on her first visit that “Minors were easily seen and did not appear to be abused/neglected.”
rule @34695..34951 | The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children.
held @30726..30878 | A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.
gloss Court blends Fourth Amendment privacy with a familial-privacy (parent-child relationship) interest without naming a separate Fourteenth Amendment right.
element x-issue-not-raised-below : not-reached
scope procedural
count separate interview of the twelve-year-old
gloss Qualified immunity for the interview was not argued in the district court, so the court declined to consider it.
element color-of-law : not-reached
element person : not-reached
element causation : not-reached
gloss Officer Schwall's responsibility for the strip search (he "backed off") is not separately analysed.
element policy : not-reached
element damages : not-reached
misfit The opinion decides only the qualified-immunity defense; the underlying Fourth Amendment violation is decided implicitly and merged with "clearly established". Recording a separate deprivation block duplicates the defense block and its [triable] basis is my inference, not the court's statement.
misfit Basis is hybrid: non-consent is "conceded for purposes of appeal" (assumed), the legal ruling is [law], and the claim itself remains for trial ([triable]); one basis tag per block cannot say all three.
misfit Much of the reasoning is analogical (like Good, unlike Darryl H., White, Baker, Wildauer, Franz); the dispositive `held` sentence is a case comparison ("This case is like Good, not Darryl H."), and the notation has no way to record which precedent's fact pattern was matched or distinguished.
misfit Whose right? Plaintiffs are parents and children; the court locates the strip-search injury mainly in the mother's dignity/authority. `party` names the defendant and `count` the conduct; there is no slot for the rights-holder.
misfit Opinion footnotes its citations, so a rule sentence may track precedent with the source only in a footnote; whether a line deserves `[quoted]` cannot be told from the line, and none is tagged here (the lines chosen are the court's own formulations).