Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan
899 F.3d 623
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- On Jan. 12, 2015, investigators executed a search warrant at the Stanley home after allegations by a teen (Jonathan) that his parents exposed children to a toxic substance (MMS) and otherwise abused/neglected them. DHS previously had "unsubstantiated" an earlier complaint.
- About 30 agents including civilian investigator Katherine Finnegan interviewed seven minors; each child was examined by a doctor who found no signs of poisoning or abuse. DHS concluded the children were healthy and should not be taken into custody.
- Despite DHS’s conclusion, Sgt. Mike Wright removed the children "at the insistence of Inv. Finnegan," and DHS then assumed custody; the children were placed away from home and enrolled in public school. Administrative findings of abuse by Finnegan were later overturned on appeal.
- The Stanleys sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Finnegan violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing and detaining their children without proper cause. Finnegan moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.
- The district court granted qualified immunity on most claims but denied dismissal as to the claim that Finnegan ordered the children’s removal without reasonable suspicion. Finnegan appealed; the Eighth Circuit reviews denial of qualified immunity de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Finnegan is entitled to qualified immunity for ordering the children’s removal | Stanleys: removal violated clearly established Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment rights because it occurred without reasonable suspicion; complaint alleges exculpatory evidence and DHS opposition to removal | Finnegan: lacked liability because she only made investigative recommendations; authority to take custody limited to certain officials; qualified immunity applies | Denied qualified immunity at Rule 12(b)(6) stage; complaint plausibly alleges removal without reasonable suspicion and survives dismissal |
| Whether an investigator can be liable for recommending removal | Stanleys: recommendation that led to forcible removal can create liability if no reasonable suspicion existed | Finnegan: investigators are immune for mere recommendations based on findings (citing Manzano) | Court: Manzano does not shield an investigator who causes forcible removal; liability possible if recommendation leads to seizure lacking reasonable suspicion |
| Whether reasonable suspicion must exist at the moment of seizure and exculpatory evidence must be considered | Stanleys: exculpatory evidence developed during the five-hour investigation undermined any reasonable suspicion | Finnegan: argued facts justified removal (investigative leads, allegations of MMS exposure) | Court: reasonable suspicion must exist at the seizure; officials cannot disregard plainly exculpatory evidence; complaint alleges Finnegan ignored such evidence |
| Whether Myers controls entitling Finnegan to immunity | Finnen: Myers granted immunity in a child-abuse removal context | Stanleys: distinguish Myers by differing facts and legal context | Court: Myers is distinguishable (summary-judgment record; many credible allegations; legal standard not then clearly established) and does not control |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bradford v. Huckabee, 394 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2005) (qualified immunity standard on appeal)
- Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 427 F.3d 525 (8th Cir. 2005) (removal of children requires reasonable suspicion)
- Abdouch v. Burger, 426 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2005) (parental liberty interests and child-protection context)
- Manzano v. S.D. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 60 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1995) (investigator’s advisory actions distinguished from forcible removal)
- Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 1999) (officers may not ignore exculpatory evidence when assessing cause/suspicion)
- Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir. 1987) (distinguished; immunity granted on different record and standards)