Stanley v. Hutchinson, No. 20-1822 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
After child abuse investigators removed seven minor children from their home, plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims against the Governor, DHS, Garland County, and numerous employees of the State and Garland County in their official and individual capacities. The district court dismissed the official capacity claims and granted qualified immunity on all individual capacity claims but one. The district court subsequently granted Defendant Finnegan and Garland County's motions for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed and concluded that the district court properly applied the Heartland test and found that the existence of exigent circumstances justified the taking of the children. Moreover, the removal was ordered in executing a warrant issued by a magistrate who was advised removal was intended. Even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the children were removed from their home. In regard to post removal proceedings, the court concluded that Finnegan was entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiffs introduced no evidence that Finnegan's find true determination and testimony in administrative and judicial proceedings were "fabricated" or came anywhere near this level of conscience-shocking behavior.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Stanley v. Finnegan, 899 F.ed 623 (8th Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs alleged defendants Wright and Finnegan violated the family's clearly established constitutional rights in removing children to DHS protective custody at the end of a five-hour home search. The district court properly applied the exigent circumstances test set out in Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 427 F.3d 525 (8th Cir. 2004) in granting defendants summary judgment; further, the removal was ordered in executing a warrant issued by a magistrate who was advised removal was intended; additionally, even if the Fourth Amendment applied in this situation, an issue the court does not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it applied in the Eighth Circuit when the children were removed; with respect to the administrative proceedings following the children's removal, Finnegan was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' due process claims, as there was no evidence her determinations and testimony in the administrative and judicial proceedings were fabricated or came anywhere near the level of consciences-shocking behavior.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.