Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner

Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner

Ratings: (0)|Views: 569|Likes:
Published by Rick Thoma
Greene v Camreta
Amicus Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
Greene v Camreta
Amicus Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner

More info:

Published by: Rick Thoma on Jan 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 09-1454 and 09-1478
 In the Supreme Court of the United States
B
OB
C
 AMRETA 
,
PETITIONER
v.
S
 ARAH
G
REENE
,
PERSONALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDFOR
S.G.,
A MINOR
,
AND
K.G.,
A MINOR
J
 AMES
 A 
LFORD
,
 
D
EPUTY 
S
HERIFF
,
 
D
ESCHUTES
C
OUNTY 
,
 
O
REGON
,
PETITIONER
v.
S
 ARAH
G
REENE
,
ET AL
.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATESAS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
N
EAL
K
UMAR
K
 ATYAL
 Acting Solicitor GeneralCounsel of Record
T
ONY 
 W 
EST
L
 ANNY 
 A.
 
B
REUER
 Assistant Attorneys General
L
EONDRA 
R.
 
K
RUGER
R
OY 
 W.
 
M
C
L
EESE
III
 Acting Deputy SolicitorsGeneral
E
RIC
J.
 
F
EIGIN
 Assistant to the Solicitor General
T
HOMAS
M.
 
B
ONDY 
S
USHMA 
S
ONI
J
OHN
M.
 
P
ELLETTIERI
 Attorneys Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov(202) 514-2217 
 
(I)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The court of appeals in this case held that petition-ers’ interview of a suspected victim of parental abuse ather school violated the Fourth Amendment. It furtherheld that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunityfrom damages in respondent’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983because the law governing such interviews was notclearly established. The questions presented are:1.Whether judgment in petitioners’ favor onqualified-immunity grounds precludes them from seek-ing review of the court of appeals’ constitutional ruling.2.Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a war-rant, a court order, parental consent, or exigent circum-stances before officials may interview a suspected victimof parental abuse at a public school.
 
(III)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageInterest of the United States............................1Statement............................................2Summary of argument.................................8 Argument:I.The court of appeals’ constitutional ruling isreviewable notwithstanding its ruling thatpetitioners are entitled to qualified immunity......11 A.Constitutional determinations in qualified-immunity cases impose prospective limita-tions on the actions of government officials....11B.This Court has jurisdiction to review a constitutional determination that hascontinuing adverse consequences for agovernment official who prevailed onqualified-immunity grounds ................14II.The Fourth Amendment permits reasonable warrantless interviews at public schools of suspected victims of parental abuse..............20 A.The law-enforcement-related interview of a suspect or witness does not presump-tively require either a warrant or probablecause....................................21B.Reasonable warrantless questioning oa suspected parental-abuse victim ina public school is consistent with theFourth Amendment .......................26Conclusion..........................................34

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->