## Facts

- A Texas child-protection hotline received a report alleging that Jackie Doe, age six, engaged in sexualized behavior at a day camp, suggesting possible sexual abuse.
- The report was assigned for investigation, and CPS caseworker Beverly Strickland was tasked by her agency to conduct a prompt investigation.
- Strickland visited Jackie’s home to investigate and told Jackie’s mother (Mary Roe) she needed to photograph Jackie, without explaining the scope or nature of the examination or photos.
- According to the parents’ account, Strickland directed Mary Roe to remove Jackie’s clothing and then conducted an intrusive visual inspection of Jackie’s naked body, photographing Jackie’s genital and anal areas.
- No warrant or court order was obtained, and the parents alleged there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances; the asserted justification was consent.
- Mary Roe questioned whether the examination was necessary and cried, but did not expressly tell Strickland to stop; she did not verbally consent to the scope of the inspection and photography.
- CPS ultimately closed the investigation without a finding of abuse, and Jackie allegedly suffered emotional distress requiring counseling.
- The parents sued in federal court alleging Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law claims; the district court dismissed agency and supervisory defendants and denied Strickland qualified immunity on federal claims.
- Strickland filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the visual inspection and photographing of a child’s genital and anal areas during a CPS investigation, without warrant, exigency, or valid consent, could constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether any Fourth Amendment right implicated by that search was clearly established in July 1999 for purposes of qualified immunity.
3. Whether the conduct violated substantive due process or familial-integrity rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal claims and rendered judgment for Strickland on those claims.
- The court held the allegations stated a viable Fourth Amendment claim and created a fact dispute over whether consent was voluntary and informed, making the search potentially unreasonable.
- The court nonetheless held Strickland was entitled to qualified immunity because the specific Fourth Amendment right against this type of CPS-administered, non-warrant, non-exigent visual body-cavity search was not clearly established in July 1999.
- The court rejected the Fourteenth Amendment theories, concluding the alleged conduct did not satisfy the substantive due process “shocks the conscience” standard and did not establish a clearly established violation of family-integrity rights in the investigative context.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on remaining state-law issues.

## Legal Principles

- A CPS worker’s intrusive inspection and photographing of a child’s naked body, including genital and anal areas, is a “search” governed by the Fourth Amendment.
- A warrantless and highly intrusive search may be unreasonable absent exigent circumstances or valid, voluntary, and informed consent; ambiguous parental acquiescence can present a fact question.
- Qualified immunity bars damages liability unless the unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time, in light of controlling authority and sufficiently similar precedent.
- Substantive due process liability for executive action requires conduct that “shocks the conscience”; conduct that may be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment does not necessarily meet that threshold.
- Family-integrity interests are limited where the state investigates plausible reports of child abuse; officials are not liable absent a clearly established constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that, on the parents’ version of events, the CPS worker’s intrusive photographic examination of a six-year-old could be an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search, but qualified immunity applied because the specific right was not clearly established in 1999; the Fourteenth Amendment claims also failed, and only state-law issues remained for further proceedings.


Roe v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regul. Servs., 299 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2002)