Hunt ex rel. DeSombre v. State, Department of Safety & Homeland Security, 69 A.3d 360

Police officer (SRO) interrogated an eight-year-old student ( Hunt) at school after a bullying incident; McDowell asked Pritchett to question AB and then Hunt without parental consent.
Pritchett questioned AB, then brought Hunt into a closed-reading-lab interrogation room with AB; he pressured Hunt and AB to confess, including threats and intimidation.
Hunt’s family sued the District Defendants and state actors; Pritchett moved for summary judgment and the district claims were resolved against others.
Court analyzes Section 1983 liability and Fourth Amendment seizure, qualified immunity, and state tort claims including IIED, false imprisonment, and battery.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment to Pritchett on some claims but denied/partially denied others; the appellate court reverses in part and affirms in part, remanding for further action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hunt's §1983 claim survives against Pritchett.	Hunt allege deprivation of federal rights by color-of-state-law action.	Pritchett entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established right violated.	Survives to a degree; qualified immunity not clearly established on record.
Whether Hunt was lawfully seized under the Fourth Amendment.	Seizure was unnecessary and coercive for a school interrogation.	Interrogation as part of school discipline can be reasonable.	Seizure is supported; but reasonableness is contested; view record in Hunt's favor.
Whether Pritchett's actions violated clearly established rights for qualified immunity.	Pritchett intentionally frightened Hunt to coerce AB's confession.	Qualified immunity applies absent clearly established violation.	Qualified immunity question remains; disputed context makes right not clearly established.
Whether Hunt can sustain IIED claim based on Pritchett's conduct.	Conduct could be extreme and outrageous given officer's role and age.	Record insufficient to prove extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law.	Reasonable minds could differ; summary judgment should be denied.
Whether battery claim survives against Pritchett.	Any intentional contact could be offensive; record shows contact.	No record of harm or offensiveness; contact minimal.	Battery claim insufficient; judgment for Pritchett affirmed on battery.

Shuman ex rel. Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2005) (school detention/ interrogation context for rights and immunity)
Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (illustrates limitations of police power with minors in schools)