Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson
12f4th834
8th Cir.2021Background:
- On Jan 12, 2015, investigators executed a warrant at the Stanley home after third‑party complaints that the father exposed children to a sodium‑chlorite product (MMS) and used excessive corporal punishment; officers detected a bleach‑like odor and found containers labeled sodium‑chlorite/MMS.
- CACD investigator Katherine Finnegan interviewed multiple children; some described exposure to MMS, smell making it necessary to ventilate the schoolroom, and the parents’ alleged plan to flee; a physician recommended off‑site exams to assess MMS effects.
- DHS initially declined removal; Sergeant Wright—invoking law‑enforcement authority—placed the children in 72‑hour DHS protective custody; DHS later filed for continued custody and the juvenile court issued emergency and probable‑cause orders extending custody for months before partial return of the children.
- CACD administratively found "true" some maltreatment allegations; later administrative and OAH proceedings changed findings to unsubstantiated; Stanleys alleged Finnegan fabricated evidence and perjured herself in court and administrative hearings.
- Procedural posture: district court dismissed most official‑capacity and individual‑capacity claims on qualified immunity grounds; this Court affirmed one pretrial qualified‑immunity ruling in Stanley I (reasonable‑suspicion standard governs removal); on remand the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining claims; Stanleys appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal violated parents' substantive due‑process liberty interest because officers lacked reasonable suspicion of child abuse | Stanley: officers relied on unreliable, unsubstantiated allegations (Jonathan); no evidence children showed toxicity or were forced to ingest MMS, so no reasonable suspicion | Defendants: totality of circumstances (odor, labeled containers, child statements, vehicle packed to flee, medical and Poison Control warnings) supplied reasonable suspicion; exigent health/fight risk justified removal | Held: No violation — reasonable suspicion existed; officers entitled to qualified immunity for the removal |
| Whether Fourth Amendment required probable cause (vs. reasonable suspicion/exigent circ.) for removal without court order | Stanley: seizure is a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring probable cause; no probable cause existed | Defendants: Fourth Amendment standard is not clearly established in this context; exigent circumstances (possible toxic exposure and flight) supported removal; reasonable‑suspicion standard governs | Held: Court applied exigent‑circumstances analysis and/or reasonable‑suspicion framework; even if Fourth Amendment applied, right was not clearly established; qualified immunity protects defendants |
| Whether Finnegan’s asserted fabrication of evidence and alleged perjured testimony violated substantive due process and defeated immunity | Stanley: Finnegan admitted doubts about evidence yet marked "find true" and allegedly perjured testimony caused prolonged custody—constitutionally actionable misconduct | Defendants: FIND‑TRUE decision and investigatory actions are prosecutorial/adjudicative functions; testimony and charging decisions are absolutely or qualifiedly immune; no evidence of conscience‑shocking fabrication like systematic witness coaching | Held: No liability — judicial proceedings determined continued custody (presumption of regularity), prosecutorial/testimonial immunity applies; at minimum qualified immunity warranted |
| Whether administrative findings and later proceedings created liability for deprivation of rights | Stanley: administrative "find true" and CACD conduct led to extended state custody and harm | Defendants: Administrative findings are prosecutorial/administrative acts; family‑court process, not CACD, controlled custody; courts and OAH reversed or unsubstantiated many findings | Held: No § 1983 liability—administrative findings and testimony are protected; family court’s proceedings insulated defendants and plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption of regularity |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Finnegan, 899 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2018) (affirmed reasonable‑suspicion standard governs child removals and framed qualified‑immunity review)
- Manzano v. S.D. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 60 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1995) (qualified immunity if removal is founded on reasonable suspicion)
- Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 427 F.3d 525 (8th Cir. 2005) (parental liberty interest; seizure without probable cause or exigent circumstances may be unconstitutional)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (context on state’s protective role versus parental liberty under Due Process Clause)
- Thomason v. SCAN Volunteer Servs., Inc., 85 F.3d 1365 (8th Cir. 1996) (discusses qualified immunity in child‑protective‑custody contexts)
- Abdouch v. Burger, 426 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizes parents’ liberty interest and availability of qualified immunity review)