Angie Hall v. Katrice Sweet
666 F. App'x 469
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Angie and Matthew Hall operated a licensed group child care home in their private residence; Hall renewed her license in 2008 and signed a one-page form consenting to "necessary and reasonable" onsite inspections of her "facility and services."
- In 2010, DHHS licensing consultant Katrice Sweet conducted an unannounced, warrantless inspection after a tip; she searched the house and found four children hidden in a non-approved room, which contributed to revocation of Hall’s license.
- In 2011, Sweet and supervisor Kathleen Sinnamon again entered and searched the home without a warrant following a complaint; no violations were found.
- The Halls sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations; the district court dismissed most defendants but denied dismissal based on qualified immunity for Sweet and Sinnamon’s warrantless searches.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit considered (1) whether the 2008 renewal (consent) form was properly before the court, (2) whether that form supplied valid and sufficiently broad consent to search the entire residence, and (3) whether the officials violated clearly established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 license-renewal consent form is part of the pleadings for a 12(b)(6)/qualified-immunity review | The district court erred to consider the form; it is outside the complaint | The form is referenced in the complaint and attached to briefing, so it may be considered on the motion | The form was properly considered: it was referenced, central to the complaint, and attached to the motion to dismiss |
| Whether the warrantless 2010 and 2011 searches violated the Fourth Amendment | The searches were unreasonable administrative searches of a home and violated the Fourth Amendment | Hall signed consent to onsite inspections of her facility; that consent reasonably covered the residence and searches were limited to spaces where children could be hidden | The searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment because Hall’s signed renewal application objectively consented to inspections of the residence and plaintiffs did not revoke or limit consent |
| Whether conditioning a license on consent to inspections is permissible | Such a condition improperly coerces surrender of constitutional rights | Licensing conditions that are reasonable and tied to the regulatory purpose (child safety) may be imposed; privacy expectation diminished for regulated home-based providers | Conditioning was reasonable under the circumstances and did not invalidate the consent provision |
| Whether the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established | Plaintiffs: administrative-search precedents (e.g., Camara) clearly established the need for warrants for regulatory searches of homes | Defendants: given consent form and circuit precedent (Andrews and later cases), it was not "beyond debate" that their conduct was unlawful; reasonable officers could disagree | Even if a constitutional violation were assumed, Sweet and Sinnamon are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in the specific context and their belief was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City & County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (administrative searches of dwellings implicate Fourth Amendment and generally require judicial authorization)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrantless entries of a home are presumptively unreasonable)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent to search is measured by objective reasonableness and the expressed object of the search)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-step framework identifying constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may exercise discretion in the order of the qualified immunity inquiry)
- Andrews v. Hickman Cty., Tenn., 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (concerning whether social workers investigating child welfare were subject to the warrant requirement; held not clearly established pre-decision)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (framing the qualified immunity standard protecting officials from liability unless rights were clearly established)