101 F.4th 742
10th Cir.2024Background
- Following an anonymous report of sexual abuse by Dr. Lowther against his four-year-old daughter (A.L.), New Mexico officials, led by CYFD and law enforcement, conducted a warrantless entry into the Lowther home, detained Dr. Lowther, and removed A.L. and her brother from parental custody twice.
- The removal was based on the child's detailed disclosure at school and behaviors observed in class, coupled with parental resistance to immediate entry and cooperation with authorities.
- After the arrest, forensic interviews and medical exams were conducted, producing evidence of possible abuse; nevertheless, criminal charges against Dr. Lowther were later dismissed, and the children were ultimately returned.
- The Lowthers sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for constitutional violations) and state law (New Mexico Tort Claims Act), challenging the legality of the warrantless entry, arrest, and removals.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity and similar grounds for the state law claims. The Lowthers appealed, focusing on the constitutional dimensions of the entry, arrest, and removals without judicial authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless Arrest (Fourth Amendment) | Arrest lacked probable cause; based on unreliable hearsay from a child | Arrest supported by probable cause due to detailed and corroborated child disclosure | Qualified immunity; probable cause existed |
| Warrantless Home Entry | Entry without consent or warrant violated Fourth Amendment; no imminent danger | Entry justified by exigent circumstances due to suspected abuse and non-cooperation | Qualified immunity; law not clearly established |
| Warrantless Child Seizure (First Removal) | No reasonable suspicion of danger to justify seizure without warrant | Exigent circumstances (suspected abuse); reasonable suspicion of danger supported removal | Qualified immunity; reasonable suspicion of abuse |
| Warrantless Child Seizure (Second Removal) | No imminent danger to justify destruction of custody rights | New evidence (forensic/medical/interference by safety monitor); fear of absconding | Qualified immunity; reasonable suspicion of imminent danger |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment generally bars warrantless home entries, except for exigent circumstances)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry to prevent imminent injury)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity requires showing of both violation and clearly established right)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (graphic details from child source can be probable cause under totality of circumstances)
- Armijo ex rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065 (officials may act on reasonable suspicion of immediate threat even without probable cause)
- Arredondo v. Locklear, 462 F.3d 1292 (state may remove child without hearing if there's a reasonable suspicion of imminent threat)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause)
- United States v. Porter, 594 F.3d 1251 ("reasonable basis" is less than probable cause)