## Facts

- A neighbor reported to police that two-year-old Ashley Franz appeared unsupervised, wet, and unclean, and allegedly had a severe diaper rash.
- Officer Richard Lytle went to the neighbor’s home, where Ashley was present, and—without contacting Ashley’s mother—directed the neighbor to remove Ashley’s diaper.
- Lytle visually inspected Ashley’s genital area and took multiple photographs of what he believed was a severe rash.
- After speaking with other neighbors, Lytle visited the Franz home; Ashley’s mother denied any diaper rash.
- The next day, Lytle returned to the Franz home with another uniformed, armed officer, entered the home, and conducted a second examination.
- During the second examination, Lytle touched Ashley’s vaginal area to check for soreness and swelling.
- Lytle told the mother that Ashley must be taken to a hospital for an examination or he would take Ashley into “protective custody” and take her himself.
- Ashley was taken to the emergency room, where a physician found only mild redness and no signs of bruising or tearing.
- The parents and Ashley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law theories; Lytle sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims, and Lytle filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless visual inspection and photographing of a two-year-old child’s genital area at a neighbor’s home, without parental knowledge or consent and without exigency, was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search.
2. Whether the second, more intrusive genital examination in the home and the threatened use of protective custody to compel a hospital exam were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether, in child neglect/abuse investigations, police officers are subject to a materially relaxed Fourth Amendment standard akin to standards sometimes applied to social workers, and whether any such standard supported qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment.
- The court held that the diaper removal, genital inspection, and photographing constituted a Fourth Amendment search and implicated strong bodily-privacy interests.
- Viewing the evidence in the plaintiffs’ favor, a jury could find both the initial and follow-up examinations unreasonable because they lacked consent, a warrant, or facts establishing a true emergency.
- The court rejected treating a uniformed police officer as functionally equivalent to a social worker for Fourth Amendment purposes and declined to apply a substantially more permissive search standard.
- The court concluded the relevant Fourth Amendment limits were clearly established in 1988, so Lytle was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage.

## Legal Principles

- Highly intrusive bodily inspections of a child’s genital area by law enforcement are “searches” subject to ordinary Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirements.
- Child-protection objectives do not eliminate the need for consent, a warrant supported by probable cause, or a recognized exception (such as true exigent circumstances or emergency aid).
- Exigent-circumstances or emergency-aid exceptions require facts showing an imminent threat or immediate need that makes obtaining a warrant impracticable.
- Qualified immunity does not protect an officer when clearly established Fourth Amendment principles would inform a reasonable officer that the conduct—given its intrusiveness and lack of consent, warrant, or emergency—was unlawful.
- Courts should not apply materially different Fourth Amendment standards to police officers based solely on the child-abuse investigative context.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that, on the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, the officer’s warrantless genital inspections and coercive follow-up actions could be found unreasonable under clearly established Fourth Amendment law, so qualified immunity was unavailable at summary judgment.


Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993)