Kathleen Whalen v. John McMullen
907 F.3d 1139
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Kathleen Whalen applied for SSDI/SSI; DDS referred her to the Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDIU) for suspected benefits fraud based on perceived inconsistencies between her reported impairments and medical records.
- Detective John McMullen (Washington State Patrol, detailed to CDIU) used an "identity theft" ruse, identified himself as law enforcement, and obtained Whalen's cooperation and entry into her home without a warrant. McMullen secretly videotaped the encounter (video only).
- McMullen observed Whalen and her wheelchair inside the home and reported observations to DDS; the footage was used in Whalen’s benefits adjudication. No criminal charges or fraud findings were pursued against Whalen.
- Whalen sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment violation (unreasonable, warrantless search via deceptive entry). The district court granted McMullen qualified immunity; Whalen appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit held McMullen’s ruse entry and interior videotaping constituted a Fourth Amendment search and was unreasonable, but affirmed on qualified immunity grounds because the law was not clearly established in this civil-benefits investigation context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McMullen’s warrantless, deceptive entry and interior videotaping was a Fourth Amendment "search" | Whalen: entry obtained by an officer who identified himself as law enforcement but lied about purpose vitiates consent; observing/videotaping inside home is a search | McMullen: entry was consensual; this was a civil administrative benefits investigation (not a criminal search) akin to welfare home visits; no warrant required | Held: It was a search—ruse entry by a known officer vitiated consent and interior observation/videotaping was a Fourth Amendment search |
| Whether the search was reasonable | Whalen: ruse entry to gather evidence inside the home was presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant | McMullen: Wyman/Sanchez (welfare-visit precedents) and "special needs" administrative-search doctrines justify warrantless entry in benefits contexts | Held: The search was unreasonable—distinguished from Wyman/Sanchez because CDIU targets suspected fraud, used deception, and the visit was investigatory (law‑enforcement purposes), not a routine, consented condition of benefits |
| Whether a "special needs" exception applies | Whalen: CDIU’s purpose is law enforcement (fraud detection), so special needs does not apply | McMullen: CDIU’s civil/administrative role advances governmental interests in eligibility verification and fraud prevention, akin to administrative searches | Held: Special‑needs exception inapplicable because the search primarily served general law‑enforcement purposes (fraud investigation) rather than a non‑law‑enforcement administrative need |
| Whether McMullen is entitled to qualified immunity | Whalen: right to be free from deceptive, warrantless entry and interior videotaping was established by ruse-entry precedents | McMullen: no clear precedent applying ruse-entry law to civil/benefits investigations; routine CDIU practice made legality uncertain | Held: Qualified immunity awarded—although the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, the right was not clearly established in this investigatory/benefits context, so McMullen is immune from suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test for searches)
- Jones v. United States, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical trespass doctrine for searches)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (unlicensed intrusion onto home/curtilage is a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (heightened protection for the home)
- Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971) (welfare home visits as administrative process; distinguishable circumstances)
- Sanchez v. County of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding welfare‑visit reasonableness under Wyman; distinguished here)
- United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1990) (ruse entry by known officer vitiates consent)
- Camara v. Municipal Court of S.F., 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (administrative inspections of residences are Fourth Amendment searches)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entries presumptively unreasonable)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)