Doe v. O’brie

Facts

DCF officials were informed that T.O., P's nine-year-old niece, had recently reported being abused by P approximately four years earlier when T.O. was five. T.O., who is deaf, reportedly accused P of making her touch his penis and perform oral sex. DCF officials in St. Augustine investigated the report and discovered that P was residing in Hillsborough County, Florida, with his wife, Jane Doe, and their three minor children, D.M. (age 13), N.O. (age 9), and B.O. (age 6). The case was assigned to D at approximately 12:30 P.M. D immediately discovered that P had previously been investigated by DCF in 1995. P had been accused of placing his penis in the rectum of a three-year-old boy whom Jane Doe was babysitting. DCF believed the allegation to be true but had not pressed charges due to lack of cooperation from the victim. P had a criminal record involving crimes of a sexual nature and had been convicted in 1989 of two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior stemming from an incident in which he exposed and fondled himself in front of children at a school bus stop. P had previously been charged with solicitation of prostitution and had been accused of, but not charged with, rape. Two hours after the investigation started D met with her supervisor and recommended sheltering all three of P's children. After contacting the legal department, D was advised to take the children into custody 2 hours and 45 minutes after the investigation started. D went to the school of one of the children interviewed the child and explained that she was going to talk to D.M.'s parents and siblings and 'make sure everybody was okay.' D then arranged for D.M. to be taken into custody, and attempted to summon a deputy sheriff to accompany her to P's residence. The deputy never arrived and, after waiting approximately one hour, D proceeded alone. She arrived there at approximately 5:20 P.M. and, after explaining that she was there to investigate a report of child abuse, was invited inside by Ps. O'Brien then proceeded to interview John Doe, Jane Doe, N.O, and B.O. D interviewed each member of the Doe family and concluded the children were in danger of abuse from P. She also concluded that Jane Doe was incapable of protecting the children and that the children would need to be temporarily removed for their safety. They were taken to their maternal grandparents' home, where they remained for the night. The following morning, a state judge concluded there was a lack of probable cause to keep the children apart from their parents, and ordered that all three children be immediately returned to Ps. Ps filed this action. D acknowledges that she did not attempt to determine whether there was time to obtain a court order before she removed the Doe children from their parents. claimed that DCF violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment (as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth) by authorizing the warrantless removal of their children. They also asserted that D violated their constitutional rights when she took their children into custody without prior judicial authorization. P filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking: (1) a declaration that § 39.401(1) is unconstitutional; (2) a determination that D violated their Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights; and (3) a determination that D was not entitled to qualified immunity. P's motions were denied. The case proceeded to trial on the § 1983 claim against D. The district court granted D's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity. This appeal resulted. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.