Roe v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

A child-protection hotline received a call regarding Jackie, a little girl who touched another six-year-old girl’s private parts and her own, kissed the little girl, danced, and exhibited other sexualized behaviors that suggested to others that Jackie may have been sexually abused. On July 10, 1999, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the department) (defendant) sent caseworker Beverly Strickland to Jackie’s home to investigate whether Jackie had been abused. Once inside, Strickland discussed the abuse concerns and told Mrs. Roe (plaintiff) that she needed to photograph Jackie; Strickland did not explain to Mrs. Roe the extent of the visual exam or the type of pictures she planned to take. Strickland asked Mrs. Roe to take off Jackie’s clothing so that Strickland could assess whether anything appeared abnormal. Strickland proceeded to take invasive pictures of Jackie’s private areas. During the visual exam and pictures, to which Mrs. Roe never verbally consented, Mrs. Roe asked whether removing Jackie’s clothing and taking the photographs was really necessary and teared up, but Mrs. Roe did not ask Strickland to stop. The case was later closed with no findings of abuse. Strickland acknowledged acting without probable cause, a warrant, or exigent circumstances, leaving only consent to the search as a possible justification. After Strickland’s visit, Jackie had regular nightmares and exhibited signs of anxiety for around six months. Jackie received counseling as a result. Jackie’s parents filed suit against Strickland, the department, and certain officials for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and various state-law claims. All defendants except for Strickland were dismissed from the suit by a district court. Strickland filed a motion for summary judgment, citing qualified immunity for the federal claims and official immunity for the claims arising under state law. The district court did not grant summary judgment, and Strickland appealed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit focused on whether Strickland was entitled to qualified immunity on Jackie’s Fourth Amendment claim. On July 10, 1999, the Fifth Circuit’s caselaw would have caused a reasonable person to doubt that a child had a Fourth Amendment right to reject a visual body-cavity search.