Stephen Sjurset v. Charles Button
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21054
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- In Feb. 2010 DHS received a doctor’s-tip that the children’s mother, Jessica Borchers, tested positive for methamphetamine; she lived with Stephen Sjurset and two young children (N.S. and T.B.).
- DHS caseworker Moller‑Mata was unable to contact the parents; DHS asked Stayton police to perform a weekend welfare check. Officers Button, Meeks, and Mumey responded.
- When Sjurset refused entry, DHS dispatched social worker Mary Anne Miller; DHS supervisors (Miller and Bradley) concluded (on‑the‑spot, without a court order) the children should be taken into protective custody because a warrant could not be obtained until Monday.
- The Stayton officers did not independently decide to remove the children but executed DHS’s protective‑custody decision, entered the home, and assisted removing the children; no visible drug use or paraphernalia was observed in the area where the children were seen.
- Sjurset sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment familial‑association rights and the children’s Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable seizure). The district court denied qualified immunity to the Stayton officers; the officers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Sjurset's Argument | Stayton officers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether factual disputes (Johnson v. Jones) bar appellate review of immunity | Johnson forbids appellate review when genuine factual disputes remain | Appeal concerns an abstract legal question (clearly‑established law) based on undisputed facts about officers’ conduct | Court held Johnson inapplicable; appellate review permitted because dispute concerns whether law was clearly established given undisputed facts |
| Whether officers violated clearly established constitutional rights by entering and removing children without court order | Wallis and Fourth/14th Amendment precedent establish officers may not remove children absent reasonable cause to believe imminent danger | Officers reasonably relied on DHS protective‑custody determination and did not make independent custody decisions | Court held law was not clearly established in this interagency context; officers did not violate clearly established law |
| Whether officers were required to independently investigate or inquire before following DHS | Officers should have made reasonable inquiries; no facts showed imminent danger within the 36‑hour delay for a warrant | Officers had knowledge of mother’s positive drug test, prior child‑endangerment conviction, parents’ refusals to cooperate, and that DHS had made a custody decision; reliance was reasonable | Court held officers had enough information and could reasonably rely on DHS; no duty to conduct de novo investigation that would impose a Catch‑22 |
| Whether, even if law was clearly established, officers are nonetheless entitled to immunity because their mistake was reasonable | The absence of visible exigent signs made reliance unreasonable | Qualified immunity protects reasonable but mistaken judgments; officers entitled to immunity if mistake was objectively reasonable | Court held that even assuming error, officers’ reliance on DHS was objectively reasonable and entitled them to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (rule limiting appeals that challenge existence of genuine factual disputes)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (appealable abstract legal questions re: qualified immunity)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.) (removal of child without prior judicial authorization requires reasonable cause to believe imminent danger)
- Mueller v. Auker, 700 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (officers acting at direction of experts/medical personnel entitled to immunity where they made no independent custody decision)
- Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir.) ("integral participant" theory for officers involved in a planned operation)
- Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.) (officers must make reasonable inquiries when relying on exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)