McMurry v. Weaver
142 F.4th 292
| 5th Cir. | 2025Background
- In October 2018, Officer Alexandra Weaver and a colleague conducted a welfare check on 14-year-old J.M. after learning her mother (McMurry) was overseas and the children might be unsupervised, though a neighbor was assigned to check on them.
- The officers entered the McMurry home, conducted a search of areas like the kitchen and refrigerator without a warrant or parental consent, and instructed J.M. not to contact her mother.
- J.M. was removed from the home, questioned at the apartment complex, denied contact with her parents, then transported by police to the local junior high, where she was detained in a private office until CPS deemed no neglect had occurred and released the children to the neighbor.
- Criminal charges for child abandonment against Ms. McMurry were filed but resulted in acquittal.
- The McMurrys sued Officer Weaver for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and state law; the district court denied Weaver qualified immunity on claims of unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, and denial of procedural due process. Weaver appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search | Weaver searched the home, including the refrigerator, without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. | Search justified by special needs/community caretaking exceptions; also, ambiguous consent due to virtual schooling. | Warrantless search inside home not justified; existing law clearly established. |
| Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Seizure | Removing J.M. without a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances violated established law. | Community caretaking/special needs allowed for removal; home as public school due to homeschooling. | Removal without exigent circumstances or court order violated clearly established rights. |
| Fourteenth Amendment: Procedural Due Process | Seizure of J.M. without court order or exigent circumstances denied parents procedural due process. | Procedures followed sufficient under child welfare context. | Procedural due process violation tied to unreasonable seizure; law clearly established. |
| Qualified Immunity | Law was clearly established by precedent; conduct violated obvious constitutional protections. | No clearly established law specific to virtual schooling/homeschooling scenario; qualified immunity applies. | No qualified immunity; prior precedent gave fair warning; court affirms denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (warrantless home searches are presumptively unreasonable; exigent circumstances required)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement)
- Gates v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Reg. Services, 537 F.3d 404 (government searches/seizures in child welfare context require court order, consent, or exigent circumstances)
- Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386 (extends Gates to child endangerment context; reiterates clear standards for removal)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (home is entitled to the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (qualified immunity denied for obvious constitutional violations)