Term: 2010
Docket: 09-1454
Bob Camreta, Petitioner v. Sarah Greene, Personally And As Next Friend Of S. G., A Minor, And K. G., A Minor
- Pro
09-1454 CAMRETA V. GREENE DECISION BELOW: 588 F.3d 1011 CONSOLIDATED WITH 09-1478 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT CERT. GRANTED 10/12/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) The state received a report that a nine-year-old child was being abused by her father at home. A child-protection caseworker and law-enforcement officer went to the child's school to interview her. To assess the constitutionality of that interview, the Ninth Circuit applied the traditional warrant/warrant-exception requirements that apply to seizures of suspected criminals. Should the Ninth Circuit, as other circuits have done, instead have applied the balancing standard that this Court has identified as the appropriate standard when a witness is temporarily detained? (2) The Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of the interview in order to provide "guidance to those charged with the difficult task of protecting child welfare within the confines of the Fourth Amendment[,]" and it thus articulated a rule that will apply to all future child-abuse investigations. Is the Ninth Circuit's constitutional ruling reviewable, notwithstanding that it ruled in petitioner's favor on qualified immunity grounds? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-35333
The U.S. Supreme Court case Bob Camreta v. Sarah Greene, 2010 involved a child protective services worker (Camreta) and a deputy sheriff who interviewed a nine-year-old girl at school without a warrant or parental consent about possible sexual abuse by her father. The mother, Sarah Greene, sued on behalf of her daughters claiming the interview violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Initially, the Ninth Circuit court ruled that while the officials' actions did violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the child, they could not be held financially liable because such an application of law was not clearly established at that time. However, when brought to Supreme Court review in 2011 it resulted in an unusual decision: although agreeing with lower courts’ rulings regarding violation of constitutional rights due to lack of warrant or parental consent for interviews concerning potential child abuse cases; it vacated this judgement based on mootness doctrine as children were no longer subject to these practices hence rendering any prospective relief irrelevant.
In the dissenting opinion for Bob Camreta v. Sarah Greene, Justice Scalia argued that the court should not have addressed whether or not a child's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was interviewed at school without a warrant about potential sexual abuse at home. He contended that this issue was moot because no future action could be taken against the social worker who conducted the interview due to qualified immunity. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for creating new law in an area where they had no business doing so and warned of potential negative consequences from their decision, including discouraging officials from taking necessary actions to protect children out of fear of violating constitutional rights. Justice Scalia believed it would have been more appropriate to wait until a case arose where these issues were directly relevant before making such significant legal determinations.
