Demaree v. Pederson
887 F.3d 870
9th Cir.2018Background
- In August 2008 Walmart notified police after photographic prints showed nude images of the Demarees' three young children; police seized photographs and executed a home search warrant.
- Detectives interviewed parents and had the children undergo forensic interviews and medical exams; exams were normal and CPS initially returned the children to the parents.
- CPS investigator Laura Pederson reviewed seized evidence, consulted with the detective, and — without a court order or warrant — took the three children into temporary emergency custody over a holiday weekend; Van Ness approved.
- Juvenile court never adjudicated abuse or neglect; parents were not charged; children were returned about a month later.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure (family unity/Fourth Amendment) and other constitutional claims; district court granted summary judgment to Pederson and Van Ness on qualified immunity grounds and denied sealing of the summary-judgment opinion.
- Ninth Circuit: held appeal timely, reversed qualified-immunity grant (denying immunity on unlawful removal), and affirmed denial of sealing; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Lodging the Rule 59 motion with request to file under seal constituted filing that tolled appeal deadline | Lodged motion was not filed; tolling didn't apply so appeal untimely | Appeal was timely: lodged motion was delivered to clerk, district court treated it as filed by ruling on merits, so Rule 4(a)(4) tolling applied (majority); separate judge dissented on jurisdictional ground |
| Lawfulness of warrantless removal | Pederson/Van Ness removed children without exigent circumstances or judicial authorization, violating Fourth Amendment family-rights | Removal was justified by reasonable cause of imminent risk of sexual exploitation based on photos, interviews, and seized evidence | Removal violated clearly established constitutional right: no reasonable belief of imminent physical harm or molestation to justify warrantless removal |
| Qualified immunity (clearly established law) | Prior Ninth Circuit precedent made clear that warrantless removal requires articulable imminent risk of serious bodily harm or molestation | Defendants argued precedent did not clearly cover exploitative-photo situations or multi-day delays when courts closed | Right was clearly established by cases like Rogers and Mabe; qualified immunity denied (majority). Judge Zouhary would have found qualified immunity because no controlling precedent directly addressed this photo/exploitation + multi-day delay scenario |
| Motion to seal / public access | Plaintiffs sought sealing to protect children's privacy and because CPS records are confidential | Court argued redactions already protected identities and public right of access is strong; state confidentiality provisions did not require sealing the court order | Denial of sealing affirmed: no compelling reasons shown to overcome presumption of public access |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing constitutional right of families to live together free from governmental interference)
- Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (warrantless removal invalid without reasonable inference of imminent danger)
- Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (jury could find warrantless removal unconstitutional despite sexual-abuse allegations)
- Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2016) (same exigent-circumstances standard for removal; need for imminent risk)
- Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing circumstances that can give rise to reasonable inference of imminent danger)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires law to be clearly established; need for specificity)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (timeliness rules in court-made rules are claim-processing, not jurisdictional)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (strong presumption of public access to judicial records)