Plaintiff\u2019s claim of being forced to do a drug test but not for protection of the children she cared for stated a claim and survived summary judgment. Knighton v. Benton Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23741 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nBelew’s decision to force Knighton to take a drug test is not excused by exigent circumstances because, if he believed the children to be in danger, the correct course of action would be to remove them from the home\u2014which he did. But he also chose to essentially begin gathering evidence against Knighton rather than simply removing them from the situation. So even if Belew had a reasonable basis to believe the children were in danger because of Knighton’s drug use, a drug test does not assist him in resolving that danger. After all, “there is, of course, no longer any exigency if the emergency has dissipated.” Ramirez v. Killian, 113 F.4th 415, 422 (5th Cir. 2024). By removing the children from the home, he was removing them from immediate harm, so he had no cause to force Knighton to take the drug test. See, e.g., McMurry, 142 F.4th at 300 (concluding no exigent circumstances for search when child faced no immediate danger); Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 422 (5th Cir. 2008) (removing children from house was not justified when abuser was not at home and so children were not facing immediate danger).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff\u2019s claim of being forced to do a drug test but not for protection of the children she cared for stated a claim and survived summary judgment. Knighton v. Benton Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23741 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, … Continue reading