AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Family Relationships
A father and his children sued a county, a child welfare agency, and others for alleged civil rights violations arising from a child welfare investigation. Claims were asserted for violations of the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability claims. However, the father pleaded a plausible First Amendment claim where he asserted that he engaged in protected activity, that the alleged retaliation would objectively have had a chilling effect, and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker’s actions. Additionally, the social worker was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would have known that taking the serious step of threatening to terminate a parent’s custody of his children, when the official would not have taken this step absent her retaliatory intent based on his criticism of her actions, violated the First Amendment. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. A Fourth Amendment claim failed, however, because the father failed to show interviews of the children at their school were seizures. Capp v. County of San Diego, #18-55119, 940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019).
A police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old boy, and his parents sued the officer, the chief of police, and the city, claiming excessive force. The trial court granted the officer qualified immunity and judgment on the pleadings on other claims. A federal appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that, in light of the circumstances, the officer’s actions were not objectively reasonable and the decedent’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time. The appeals court found that, if the plaintiffs’ allegations were true, the officer shot a non-resisting, non-fleeing minor as he moved his gun in compliance with the officer’s commands to drop his gun. No reasonable officer could conclude that the decedent then posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm if the facts were as alleged, the appeals court ruled. Municipal liability claims were therefore reinstated along with state law claims. The parents, however, failed to allege a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to a familial relationship, because they failed to show that the shooting was directed at their relationship with their son. Partridge v. City of Benton, #18-1803, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19940, 2019 WL 2864365 (8th Cir.).
A police officer shot and killed a
female motorist at the conclusion of a high-speed chase of a stolen vehicle,
firing twelve rounds into the car which had stopped after ramming a police car
several times. The woman had yelled "Fuck you!" in response to orders
to turn off her car. The woman's children sued the officer for violation of
their due process rights. The officer's motion for qualified immunity was
denied, with the trial judge concluding that the jury could, based on the
alleged facts, conclude that the officer had used deadly force with a purpose
to harm the woman unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective. The
jury awarded $30,000 in damages to both of the decedent's minor children. A
federal appeals court upheld the pretrial denial of qualified immunity and the
jury's verdict, finding it reasonable. Further proceedings were ordered,
however, on an award of attorneys' fees and costs, with the appeals court finding
that the trial judge should consider the amounts discussed in settlement
negotiations when determining the reasonable amount of fees to award, based on
an intervening change in the law reflected in In re Kekauoha-Alisa, #09-60019,
674 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2012); and Ingram v. Oroudjian, #09-57022, 647 F.3d
925, 927 (9th Cir. 2011), cases decided after the fee award, but before the
appeals court's decision. A.D. v. State of California Highway Patrol,
#09-16460, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6689 (9th Cir.).
Officers were entitled
to qualified immunity for temporarily physically separating a
twenty-one-month-old male infant from his mother. The child became entangled in
a soccer net, and was extricated by his mother, who found him not breathing.
Officers summoned to the scene saw strangulation marks on the child and
declared the area a crime scene. The mother was taken away because she kept
screaming threats of suicide. The child died, and the mother sued, claiming
that the officers' actions slowed down the efforts of paramedics to save him.
There was no clearly established due process duty to provide protection and
medical treatment to the child in these circumstances. Cantrell v. City of
Murphy, #10–41138, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 63 (5th Cir.).
The due process and equal protection rights of a
divorced mother were not denied by police officers when they prevented her from
having one of her permitted visitations with her children at her ex-husband's
residence when the children allegedly did not welcome her visit. The children
were in the father's custody. The police action deprived her "of only a
short period of visitation with the children: one three-hour visit," and
any liberty interest involved had been substantially reduced by the terms of
the divorce order. The court further held that school officials also weren't
liable for allegedly preventing her from visiting the children at their school,
since it "is not clear that a parent's fundamental liberty interest . . .
includes unfettered access to the children during a school day." Schmidt
v. Des Moines Public Schools, #10-3411, 655 F.3d 811 (8th Cir.).
A woman brought five children sleeping at her
house (her minor daughter and four minor grandchildren) to the hospital. She
had found blood on the underwear of her daughter and learned that the boys and
girls had slept together rather than in gender-separate rooms. After she
refused to consent to the sedation of the girl for purposes of a sexual assault
examination, she attempted to leave with the children. Medical staff members
and police imposed a 72-hour hold on the girl and the boy suspected of
assaulting her, and ultimately examinations of both children were carried out.
Police and medical personnel were entitled to summary judgment on civil rights
claims brought against them. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or
Fourteenth Amendment rights of the woman or the children under the
circumstances. Doe v. Tsai, #10-2655, 648 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011).
Parents and students claimed that a Nevada state
child protection official improperly removed the students from a school during
an abuse investigation. The action was taken after the official had compiled a
"significant amount" of evidence of sexual activity allegedly taking
place at the school involving staff members and students, as well as poor
living conditions, inadequate medical care, the lack of supervision, and the
possibility that two employees had criminal records. The official, therefore,
could have reasonably concluded that the removal of the students was justified
by a concern for their safety and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
actions also did not violate the parents' rights to family integrity under the
Fourteenth Amendment, as the failure to contact them before removing the students
did not violate clearly established law. Barragan v. Landry, #08-16790, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 483 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A private religious boarding school for children
with behavioral and substance abuse problems, six former students, and thirteen
parents of the former students sued Missouri juvenile officials, claiming that
they conspired to raid the school and seize scores of its students. The
purported ringleader of the conspiracy allegedly disliked the school because it
operated, legally, without a license, because he disagreed with its teachings,
and because he believed that it had not acted "very Christ-like."
Juvenile authorities and armed law enforcement officers, numbering 30 persons
in total, arrived at the school and removed 115 of its students, based on ex
parte orders from local juvenile court judges, allegedly obtained by
misrepresentations that the students were in imminent danger of physical harm
and that the school was unwilling to cooperate with juvenile authorities.
Because the information presented was also "stale" the raiding party
lacked orders for dozens of the students that they removed, but they had orders
for about forty children who no longer lived there, as well as for four adults
over whom the juvenile courts lacked jurisdiction. The children were detained
until their parents could pick them up, and parents were then given "stern
letters" telling them to keep their children away from the school.
Juvenile cases involving the children were all dismissed. The defendants were
not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, as the
constitutional rights violated under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendment if the plaintiffs' allegations were true were clearly established.
Heartland Acad. Community Church v. Anderson, #08-3723 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
2619 (8th Cir.).
A fourteen-year old daughter ran away from the
home of her mother and stepfather. Her mother and father were divorced. When
interviewed, she told an officer that her stepfather had struck her and also
that he repeatedly grabbed her breasts. The officer, without contacting the
father, and lacking a warrant, took the girl into protective custody. The
father, mother, and stepfather sued, claiming that the officer violated their
Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association. A federal appeals court
upheld summary judgment for the officer because he had a reasonable basis to
belief that the girl faced imminent danger of physical harm, and the officer
was entitled to qualified immunity on claims arising from his failure to
contact the father. The county, however, was not entitled to summary judgment
on the father's claim that the failure to contact him violated his rights.
Burke v County of Alameda, #08-15658, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24715 (9th Cir.).
A woman called police and claimed that her
husband had been drinking and was trying to leave with their infant daughter.
The officers found that the husband was sober and he went to visit relatives.
He slept in the same bed as the daughter and another child, and when he woke
up, the daughter was dead. The wife claimed that officers who responded to her
call improperly threatened to arrest her if she removed her daughter from her
husband's car. While the officers claimed that they had a reasonable belief that
the mother was about to violate a Tennessee state domestic assault law, the
court ruled that the mother, at the time, had a legal right to her daughter, so
that removing the child from the car would not have violated the statute. The
mother was denied summary judgment, as were the officers on a Fourth Amendment
claim, but they were granted summary judgment on a 14th Amendment due process
claim. The mother failed to show that the city was liable on the basis of
inadequate training of the officers. Adams v. Hendersonville, No.
3:06-cv-00788, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72003 (M.D. Tenn.).
Police were entitled to qualified immunity for
requiring a father to remain at a family home while his wife took a small
child, discovered not to be breathing, to the hospital. They allegedly told him
that he could not leave until investigators interviewed him as part of the
investigation. The child subsequently died. Under these circumstances, it could
not be said that an officer involved in a child death investigation acted
unreasonably in taking these actions. The court ruled that, even if the
investigation had essentially developed into a "de facto" arrest of
the father, an officer could still believe that it was investigative. If a
mistake was made, it was a reasonable one. Seymour v. City of Des Moines, No.
06-3842, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6138 (8th Cir.).
Neither mother nor father of decedent who was
shot and killed by police had standing to pursue federal civil rights or state
law wrongful death claims arising out of the death when no one had been
appointed as the representative of the decedent's estate. The lawsuit was
therefore dismissed. Farrow v. Sammis, No. 3:07CV00097, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
90429 (E.D. Ark.).
The family of a person who died in fatal car crash
failed to show that the actions of police in dealing with them following the
accident violated their due process rights. No prior case recognized a due
process right concerning the manner in which a family is notified of the death
of a family member, and if there was any such right, it would only apply to
conduct that was shocking to the conscience. In this case, the police did not
act with deliberate indifference and their conduct was not conscience shocking.
They did use "deception" to first obtain a photograph of the victim
to aid in his identification, and did not tell the family he had died until
they had made the identification. A statement the police made to the media
concerning the accident was justified by the legitimate purpose of informing the
public about a fatal collision. Estate of Gadway v. City of Norwich, No.
3:05-CV-935, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72561 (D. Conn.).
Officers were justified in removing a newborn
daughter from her parents' home when the father had been indicted for child molestation.
The removal of a toddler son from the home, prior to that indictment, was also
justified by the possibility that both parents might commit suicide, since one
had threatened to do so, and the other had attempted it. The officers believed
that there was an imminent risk that the son, then one year old, might not have
a caretaker available to provide for his needs. Additionally, his presence on
the scene during these events could raise the possibility that he would be
subject to psychological injury. Rhode Island state law did not require a
finding of abuse of the individual child before removing that child from the
home, and removal of a child could instead be supported by an imminent serious
risk of neglect. Carter v. Lindgren, No. 06-2539, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21471
(1st Cir.).
A federal trial judge has awarded $101.7 million
against the U.S. government on claims that the FBI was "responsible
for the framing of four innocent men" for murder, causing them to serve
decades for a crime they did not commit. Four men falsely convicted of a 1965
gangland murder, and their estates and families asserted claims against the
U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346
and 2671-2680 for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The trial court rejected
the argument that the U.S. government was entitled to immunity based on the
discretionary function exception to liability in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a). The
FBI's alleged conduct in knowingly allowing an informant to provide perjurious
testimony in the murder trial, failing to reveal exculpatory evidence, and
failing to disclose information about the actual murderers for a period of
thirty years was unconstitutional and violated its own rules, the judge ruled.
The court found that the FBI's conduct was the cause of the convictions, and
that the conduct met the standard for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, as the alleged actions violated all standards of decency and were
intentional. The family members of the convicted persons were entitled to
damages, under Massachusetts law for bystanders' intentional infliction of
emotional distress. $1 million for each year of imprisonment was awarded to the
men falsely convicted, or their estates. The minor children of the convicted
men, and three of the wives of the convicted men were also awarded damages, as
were an adult child of one of the men, and a wife who divorced one of the men.
Two of the four men are now deceased, while two of them are still alive. Limone
v. U.S., No. 02cv10890-NG, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54224 (D. Mass.). [Editor's
Note: The total damages awarded were $101.7 million].
Three surviving minor children of a man who
died following a fight with police officers could not pursue claims for
deprivation of their 14th Amendment right of familial association when they had
not alleged or attempted to demonstrate that the officers directed their
conduct at their familial association with their father or otherwise intended
to interfere with it. The officers and city were therefore entitled to summary
judgment. Estate of Herring v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 06-1166, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 11775 (10th Cir.).
Social workers were not entitled to summary
judgment for removing minor children from their home without a warrant, based
on a report that they were not toilet trained, were locked in their rooms at
night, were not receiving medical and dental care, and were living in a house
that was "dirty" and contained unsecured guns. The conditions in the
home did not suffice to show that the children were in imminent risk of serious
bodily harm, and the law requiring judicial authorization for the removal of
children under such circumstances was clearly established, so that qualified
immunity was inappropriate. The alleged conduct would have violated the clearly
established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the children and the
parents. Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
12359 (9th Cir.).
Police officers and social workers were entitled
to summary judgment in a lawsuit over their removal of the plaintiffs' children
from their home without prior notice or hearing when they had reasonable
suspicion that the children either had been subject to abuse, or that there was
an imminent peril of that happening. Arredondo v. Locklear, No. 05-2237, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 23191 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
The parents, siblings, and children of a man
allegedly shot and killed without provocation by officers during a raid on a
housing project did not have their own federal civil rights claim, as the
officers did not act with the intent of interfering with their family
relationships with the decedent. Martinez-Rivera v. Sanchez Ramos, No. 05-2146,
430 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Puerto Rico 2006). [N/R]
Family members of a man allegedly subjected to
unlawful arrest or other civil rights violations do not have an independent
federal civil rights claim without a showing that the unconstitutional conduct
was directed at their family relationship. Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced, No. CIV.
04-2114, 389 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D. Puerto Rico 2005). [N/R]
Deputy sheriff and police officer did not violate
the constitutional rights of a mother and her seven-year-old son when they
temporarily removed the son from her custody without a court order because they
suspected the mother of involvement in narcotics trafficking and being drug
intoxicated. K.D. v. County of Crow Wing, No. 05-2499, 434 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir.
2006), petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 5117 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
Parent of adult who died from cardiac arrest from
cocaine-induced delirium while being transported by officers could not sue for
damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for the deprivation of her relationship with
her son, since she had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in that
relationship. She also could not vicariously assert a Fourth Amendment claim on
behalf of the decedent. Hannah v. City of Dover, No. 05-2422, 152 Fed. Appx.
114 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Parents of armed robbery suspect shot and killed
by police officers had no standing under California law to pursue a federal
civil rights lawsuit or state law claims arising out of the incident on their
own behalf when they were not financially dependent on the decedent. Foster v.
City of Fresno, No. CVF035306, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (E.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
Family members of murder victim could not recover
damages for emotional distress allegedly suffered due to police investigators
failure to pursue or to inform the department of inculpatory evidence found
during the investigation. Even if these claims were true, they were
insufficient to "shock the conscience" and violate the family
member's due process rights. Cusick v. City of New Haven, No. 03-7890, 145 Fed.
Appx. 701 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Family of man shot and killed by police officer
could not pursue a federal civil rights claim for deprivation of their right to
familial association in the absence of any evidence that the officers intended
to interfere with their relationship with the decedent, and his estate was the
only party authorized to pursue a claim under New Mexico's state wrongful death
statute. Murphy v. Bitsoih, No. CIV. 02-1185, 320 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D.N.M.
2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court, overturning 20-year-old
precedent, rules that parents of an adult son shot and killed by a police
officer could not recover damages in federal civil rights lawsuit for the loss
of the companionship of their son. Russ v. Watts, No. 04-3628, 414 F.3d 783
(7th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Nov]
Iowa deputy violated due process rights of
non-custodial father when he removed 12-year-old visiting daughter from his
home after seeing her in the presence of an accused sexual offender, and failed
to notify juvenile court of the removal. Father had a protected liberty
interest in connection with his daughter's visitation. Jury improperly awarded
$30,000 in punitive damages, however, based on improper jury instructions that
failed to require a showing or either evil motive or reckless indifference to
protected federal rights. Swipies v. Kofka, No. 04-3244, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
16861 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Mother of 30-year-old man shot and killed by
police officer following traffic stop had no constitutionally protected due
process right to the companionship of her son which could be the basis for a
federal civil rights claim on her own behalf. Robertson v. Hecksel, No.
04-12367, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17201 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Parents and siblings of adult allegedly killed by
bullet from a pistol that had been in the possession of a police officer could
assert a claim under New Mexico law for loss of consortium, and could recover
damages if they could demonstrate that their relationships with the decedent
were sufficiently close, financially or socially, so that it was foreseeable
that an injury to the decedent would also harm them. Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup,
#22,119, 79 P.3d 836 (N.M. App. 2003). [N/R]
Father of adult son, in the absence of evidence
that son was not emancipated, could not recover damages for violation of his
parental liberty interest in son's companionship in lawsuit against city and police
officers who allegedly shot and killed son. Federal appeals court, overturning
prior lower court decisions in the Third Circuit, holds that the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extent to a parent's interest in
the companionship of an independent adult child. McCurdy v. Dodd, No. 02-2708,
352 F.3d 820 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy sheriff's action of removing man's
12-year-old daughter from his custody during court ordered visitation was not
reasonable, when based on deputy's knowledge of pending charges against father
for allegedly sexually abusing a fourteen-year-old female. Deputy was not
entitled to qualified immunity in father's civil rights lawsuit, as his action
was not justified as an emergency removal based on reasonable suspicion of
child abuse. Swipies v. Kofka, No. 03-1274, 348 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2003). [2004
LR Feb]
State social workers and other employees violated
the Fourth Amendment in removing a 12 year-old child from his parents' home
without a warrant and the plaintiffs adequately stated a Fourteenth Amendment
due process claim for deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty
interest in their family relationship. Warrantless entry into home to
investigate the possibility that the child was a victim of Munchausen Syndrome
by Proxy (MSBP), however, did not violate clearly established law because the
defendants could have believed that exigent circumstances existed justifying
the entry, based on the possibility of harm to the child. Further proceedings
were ordered to determine if Utah state statutes providing only
post-deprivation remedies in child removals entitled the defendants to
qualified immunity for removing the child. Roska Ex Rel. Roska v. Peterson,
#01-4057, 328 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that the law of the
state of Georgia as to the standing of a parent of an adult child murdered to
pursue wrongful death claims against those who caused the death is incorporated
into federal law under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, and that, pursuant to the Georgia
Supreme Court's answer to the question the appeals court previously certified
to it, the mother of a man murdered by his surviving spouse could pursue a
federal civil rights claim for the death. Carringer v. Rodgers, #01-15258, 331
F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Father could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit
seeking damages for city's alleged failure to notify him of a hearing at which
his parental rights were terminated. Claim was not barred by "domestic
relations" exception to federal court jurisdiction, since he was not
seeking the restoration of his parental rights or any other domestic relations
award. King v. Commissioner and New York City Police Department, No. 00-9234,
60 Fed. Appx. 873 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Georgia Supreme Court holds that, under state
law, a parent of an adult child murdered by his surviving spouse can pursue a
wrongful death claim against the alleged murderer or against "other
parties" that proximately caused the death, answering a question certified
to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case where the
murdered son's mother asserted state wrongful death claims against the wife, a
police chief, and the city. The claims against the city and police chief were
based on the fact that the alleged murderer was a police captain who had
previously attempted suicide. The police chief had ordered her to remove all
weapons from her home, but did not relieve her of her duties, and she used her
service revolver to shoot and kill her husband. Carringer v. Rodgers, No.
SO2Q1483, 578 S.E.2d 841 (Ga. 2003). [N/R]
Nebraska Supreme Court rejects argument by mother
of cross-dressing woman that $98,223 in damages for failure of county sheriff
to protect her daughter against murder by two men she accused of rape was
inadequate. Court notes that mother's relationship with her daughter was
"strained." Brandon v. County of Richardson, #S-01-1158, 653 N.W.2d
829 (Neb. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
Alleged police conduct of giving false and
defamatory information about murder suspect to his family members to make them
fearful of him, ostracize him, and elicit false accusations against him, if
true, violated his clearly established constitutional rights to familial
relationships. Patel v. Searles, #00-9552, 305 F.3d 130 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2003
LR Jan]
Jurors could reasonably find that actions by
state police in failing to send assistance to truck driver in backing an
18-wheeler truck loaded with overhanging poles out onto the highway did not
render them liable for the deaths of two occupants of a car which collided with
the truck as it backed out after sunset without a police escort. Officers
believed that driver would not make such an attempt after sunset, when the
driver indicated that he knew it would be illegal for him to be on the road at
that time. Trial judge properly found sheriffs' office, however, 20% at fault
for failing to respond to request for assistance. General damages of $400,000
to each of ten adult children of two parents killed ordered, increasing prior
award of $200,000 each, based on children's close relationship with parents,
and fact that the parents were killed on Mother's Day, after celebrating that
day with their children. Davis v. Witt, #01-894, 831 So. 2d 1075 (La. App.
2002). [N/R]
Parents of motorist shot and killed by
police officer could pursue a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the deprivation of
their son's relationship despite the fact that he was an adult and had fathered
a child, when he had never become part of another "family unit" since
he had not married, but his siblings could not do so. Russ v. Watts, 190 F.
Supp. 22d 1004 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
Decedent's family had no constitutionally
protected privacy interest in preventing officer from making public statements
containing information about his highly personal sexual behavior of an
allegedly autoerotic nature, and were not entitled to a "name-clearing
hearing." Livsey v. Salt Lake County, No. 00-4005, 275 F.3d 952 (10th Cir.
2001). [2002 LR May]
342:90 County sheriff had a duty to
protect cross- dressing rape victim against threats by her assailants that they
would kill her if she reported the crime; sheriff's "demeaning" and
"accusatory" statements to victim during interview were
"outrageous" as a matter of law; Nebraska Supreme Court rules that
mother of murdered rape victim must be awarded full $80,000 for decedent's pain
and suffering, as well as some amount for loss of companionship and orders
further proceedings on emotional distress claim based on sheriff's conduct.
Brandon v. County of Richardson, #S-00-022, 624 N.W.2d 604 (Neb. 2001).
338:27 UPDATE: Federal appeals court reduces jury
award of $98 million for failure to protect informant from being murdered to
$1.1 million, while upholding determination that officers should have
constantly monitored informant as he faced dangerous situation in attempting to
purchase crack cocaine; punitive damages were not available against D.C. and
informant's mother had no constitutional claim based on loss of companionship
of adult non-dependent son. Butera v. District of Columbia, No. 00-7008, 235
F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
341:70 County was not liable for alleged failure
to allow mother of children to contest county's obtaining of permanent custody
of her children, when there was no showing that it was a county policy or
custom to deny parents a hearing; county social worker who allegedly failed to
notify state court that mother wanted to assert her parental rights, however,
was not entitled to absolute immunity, as she was not a "legal
advocate" or prosecutor in the case. Holloway v. Brush, No. 96-3732, 220
F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Man forcibly removed from his parents' home
as a minor due to allegations of child neglect purportedly related to
relatives' objection to his parents' religious beliefs could sue on his claim
that his seizure in his home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment;
county sheriff and county probation officer who removed child were subject to
individual liability. Brokaw v. Mercer County, No. 98-1131, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th
Cir. 2000).
316:55 Wife and mother of man shot and killed by
officers at the scene of domestic disturbance had no standing to pursue Fourth
Amendment claim on his behalf when they failed to bring suit as representatives
of his estate or his "successors in interest" under California law;
plaintiffs were also properly barred from pursuing their direct claim for
interference with their family relationships when they presented no evidence on
such claim at trial. Byrd v. Guess, #96-55532, 137 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1998).
316:54 Man convicted of two counts of criminal
sexual conduct with minors was not entitled to damages from police officers who
immediately removed his infant daughter from his home without a warrant when
his niece had stated that she and another minor had been sexually abused there.
Falkiewicz v. City of Westland, 25 F.Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
313:8 Arrest of parent who refused to leave
school premises when asked to do so by school officials then in charge did not
violate her First Amendment right to express concern over her child's treatment
or her constitutional right to direct the education of her child; officer had
probable cause for arrest under the circumstances. Ryans v. Gresham, 6 F.Supp.
2d 595 (E.D. Tex. 1998).
311:166 Federal appeals court restores jury's
$2.25 million award to wife and children of arrestee shot in leg and back by
police officer while trying to escape from custody; $1.25 million also awarded
to arrestee's estate; defendants failed to object, before trial, or even at its
conclusion, to claims brought directly on behalf of arrestee's family members.
Robles- Vazquez v. Garcia, #95-1375, 110 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 1997).
307:103 Minor children of Florida man imprisoned
for 30 months until his conviction was reversed on grounds of entrapment had no
claim under federal civil rights law for loss of family association; Florida
Supreme Court declines to recognize such a claim. Garcia v. Reyes, 698 So.2d
257 (Fla. 1997).
305:68 Mother of public school student did not
have a "clearly established right" to repeatedly strike her son with
a belt on school property without having the incident investigated for the
possibility of violation of state law protecting children from injury by
parents; deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for investigating incident
and reporting it to prosecutor, who brought criminal charge against mother.
Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1997).
303:38 Deputy sheriff was entitled to qualified
immunity for taking woman's children into custody and giving them to her
husband; deputy found terms of protective order confusing and sought advice
from a county prosecutor. Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733 (10th Cir. 1997).
{N/R} Father who sued police officer and social
worker under federal civil rights statute, asserting that they removed his
children from his custody without prior notice or a hearing, based on two year
old allegations of sexual abuse previously investigated and found unconfirmed,
adequately stated violation of clearly established rights. Ram v. Rubin, 118
F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997).
{N/R} Alleged conduct of seeking and obtaining ex
parte order for temporary custody of woman's daughter in retaliation for her
obtaining counsel in sexual abuse investigation would have been clearly
unlawful deprivation of woman's First Amendment rights of association; police
detective not entitled to qualified immunity. Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of
Social Services, 987 F.Supp. 868 (D. Co. 1997).
294:88 Deputies' alleged interference with
divorced father's visitation with his son did not constitute deprivation of a
constitutional magnitude Zakrzewski v. Fox, 87 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 1996).
296:121 Police officer was entitled to qualified
immunity from liability for death of motorist killed in collision with stolen
car officer was pursuing; Massachusetts federal court rules that no
constitutional right against such injury was clearly established in 1991; court
also rules that motorist's children could not assert a claim for the loss of
their relationship with their parent Corbin v. City of Springfield, 942 F.Supp.
721 (D.Mass 1996).
279:41 Children of woman who attempted to swallow
container of cocaine during police raid on her home could not sue officers for
loss of mother's companionship when she sunk into "vegetative" state
as a result Broadnax v. Webb, 892 F.Supp. 188 (E.D. Mich 1995). Editor's Note:
For similar decisions, see Harpole v. Arkansas Dept of Human Servs, 809 F2d 923
(8th Cir. 1987), (grandparent could not sue for the death of a grandchild);
Ortiz v. Burgos, 807 F2d 6 (1st Cir. 1986), (stepfather, mother, and siblings
could not sue under section 1983 for death caused by officers); Berry v. City
of Muskogee, 900 F2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1990), (children could not sue for death
of their parent); and Wilson v. Meeks, No 91-1504, 1994 WL 324575, 1994 U.S.
Dist Lexis 9105 (D.Kan June 6, 1994), (children could not sue for wrongful
seizure of their parent). For decisions to the contrary, see Smith v. City of
Fontana, 818 F2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987), cert denied, 484 U.S. 935 (1988),
(children could bring section 1983 suit for deprivation of father's
companionship when father was killed by officers during his arrest); Bell v.
City of Milwaukee, 746 F2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), (father, but not siblings,
could recover where police killed son); Estate of Bailey v. County of York, 768
F2d 503 (3d Cir. 1985), (parents can sue for the killing of child).