Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24840
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- DCS assessment worker Davis and DCS staffors Primm and Wright accompanied Hickman County Sheriff’s Deputies to the Andrews home after a Priority Two referral (P2) later supplemented by a P3 referral; Wade, a reserve deputy, joined the entry without a warrant.
- The group entered the home at night to interview children and conduct a walk-through, with the state officers leading and the DCS employees following; no warrant was obtained.
- The Andrews filed § 1983 claims for Fourth Amendment violations and state-law claims; the district court denied qualified immunity to Wade and denied in part the State Defendants’ immunity, leading to interlocutory appeals.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Wade’s denial of qualified immunity, reversed the denial as to Davis, Primm, and Wright, and held Fourth Amendment limits apply to social workers; the court concluded there was no social-worker exception and that qualified immunity turned on reasonable belief under clearly established law.
- The concurrence by Judge Sutton agrees with the result and emphasizes lack of need to resolve whether social workers violated clearly established rights, noting reasonable belief under existing law sufficed for immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wade’s warrantless home entry violated the Fourth Amendment. | Andrews argue Wade violated Fourth Amendment rights. | Wade argues consent, exigent circumstances, or de minimis intrusion justify entry. | Wade not entitled to qualified immunity; entry not justified. |
| Whether the State Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and are entitled to immunity. | Andrews contend no valid exception to the warrant requirement. | State Defendants relied on information from officers and acted reasonably. | State Defendants’ entitlement to immunity reversed; social workers’ reliance on police insufficient to shield conduct. |
| Whether social workers are subject to the Fourth Amendment in home investigations and whether Jordan controls clearly established rights. | Jordan defines social worker rights and limits. | Jordan is not clearly controlling; social workers may be treated alike with police. | Fourth Amendment applies to social workers; no social-worker exception; qualified immunity denied to Wade, reversed for State Defendants. |
| Whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know the conduct violated rights. | Right clearly established; warrantless home entry impermissible. | Unclear at 2008 whether social workers fall under typical Fourth Amendment rules. | Right not clearly established for social workers at the time; Wade denied immunity, State Defendants reversed on immunity. |
| What is the appropriate treatment of reliance on police in social worker decisions going forward? | Reliance on police should not shield Fourth Amendment violations. | Reliance may be reasonable; no explicit social-worker exception. | Court acknowledges potential reliance but affirms no immunity for Wade; recognizes ongoing question about officer reliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 ((2001)) (two-prong qualified immunity framework; need clearly established law.)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 ((2009)) (courts may choose which prong to address first.)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 ((1982)) (immunity balances accountability and shielding officials from frivolous suits.)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 ((1987)) (clearly established rights must be apparent in context.)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 ((2006)) (warrantless in-home entry generally barred absent exceptions.)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 ((1980)) (entry into a home without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable.)
- Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 ((9th Cir. 1999)) (Fourth Amendment applies to social workers; no blanket exemption.)
- Gates v. Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404 ((5th Cir. 2008)) (Fourth Amendment governs social worker entries; no social-worker exception.)
- Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 ((10th Cir. 2003)) (recognizes Fourth Amendment governs social worker entries; limitations noted.)
- Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 ((6th Cir. 1989)) (context for qualified immunity determinations in Sixth Circuit.)
- Seiter v. City of Memphis, 858 F.2d 1171 ((6th Cir. 1988)) (establishes framework for balancing official immunity and rights.)