Sexual assaults of children is an exigent circumstance for their seizure and removal from the home

Repeated sexual assaults of plaintiff’s children were exigent circumstances for their seizure and removal from the home. Canter v. Reeves, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35667 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2008):

The Court finds that the factual circumstances underlying this case amounted to exigent circumstances. Ro.C. was an 11-year-old girl who revealed that she had been sexually molested by her nephew by adoption and sexually assaulted by her adopted brother on multiple occasions, as recently as the previous evening. In light of the frequency of the assaults and their unwanted nature, the case presents a situation in which “real immediate and serious consequences … would certainly occur were a police officer to postpone[] action to get a warrant.” O’Brien, 23 F.3d at 997 (internal quotations omitted).

A ticket is not itself a Fourth Amendment violation, assuming it was issued based on probable cause. Idahosa v. Despines, 275 Fed. Appx. 545 (7th Cir. 2008) (unpublished):

The ticket was neither a search nor a seizure; a ticket is just the complaint that initiates litigation. A ticket might have led to a seizure, as in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001), but Despines did not take Idahosa to the stationhouse for booking. So there is no problem under the fourth amendment–and there was in any event probable cause for the ticket. Cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.