Mark Mann v. County of San Diego
907 F.3d 1154
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- San Diego County social workers removed four young children from the Manns' home after hotline reports and a juvenile-court removal warrant; the dependency petition was later dismissed.
- After admission to Polinsky Children’s Center (Polinsky), staff performed a routine cursory health check and then, without notifying parents or obtaining a child-specific court order, conducted more extensive medical exams (including visual/tactile genital and rectal inspection, TB skin tests, blood/urine drug screens).
- Parents had signed a generic “Consent for Treatment – Parent” form at a detention hearing but were not told about and did not consent to the Polinsky investigatory exams; parents only learned later from a child’s report.
- County policy/practice had long involved performing these Polinsky exams without parental presence or child-specific judicial authorization, though the County later agreed in a settlement in a separate case to modify consent/notice practices.
- The Manns sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights and the children’s Fourth Amendment rights; district court held exclusion of parents violated Fourteenth Amendment but found no requirement for consent or court order; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mann) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty to direct medical care requires notice and consent or court authorization before investigatory exams of children in custody | County must notify parents and obtain parental consent or a court order before investigatory medical exams absent exigency or risk evidence dissipation | Wallis limited to purely investigatory exams and County’s Polinsky exams serve non-investigatory health and welfare functions so consent/court order not required | Court: Parents have Fourteenth Amendment right to notice and either consent or judicial authorization; County violated that right by performing exams without notice/consent or court order (absent exception) |
| Whether the Polinsky exams are investigatory (affecting Fourteenth Amendment analysis) | Exams are investigatory because staff look for signs of physical/sexual abuse and document findings | County contends exams assess mental/physical health, not investigatory | Court: Exams are investigatory or dual-purpose; Wallis governs; parental notice/consent required absent exceptions |
| Whether the children’s Fourth Amendment rights permit invasive exams at Polinsky without warrant, consent, or judicial authorization (or under "special needs") | Children have reasonable privacy expectation; intrusive exams require warrant/consent/judicial authorization unless exigency or evidence-dissipation; special-needs balancing does not justify bypassing notice/consent here | County invokes special-needs exception and argues exams further child-welfare and institutional safety interests making warrants impracticable | Court: Even assuming special-needs applies, balancing favors children; exams without notice/consent or judicial authorization are unreasonable absent exigency/evidence-dissipation |
| Availability of exceptions (emergency or evidence-dissipation) and administrative impracticability | Mann: No emergency or evidence-dissipation here; County could obtain consent or seek judicial authorization at detention hearing | County: Administrative burdens and child-welfare needs justify current practice without prior notice/consent | Court: Exceptions (medical emergency or reasonable concern evidence will dissipate) did not apply here; administrative impracticability not shown; County could and should notify/obtain consent or seek court approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (parental notice and judicial authorization required for investigatory physical exams absent exigency)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for policy/practice causing constitutional violation)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses investigatory child-exams and interplay with law enforcement reporting duties)
- Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (parental rights to direct medical decisions for children)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrant requirement and privacy-based Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (special-needs balancing test for searches without warrant)
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (student drug testing and diminished privacy interests)
- Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) (urine screens by state agents treated as Fourth Amendment searches)