Police interviews at school
Camreta v. Sarah Greene, Personally and as Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor
In brief
The Court wiped out part of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back, leaving the school-interview approval question unanswered.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · May 26, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- Sarah Greene said Bob Camreta and a deputy interviewed her daughter at school without a warrant or parental consent. The Court threw out the case because S.
- Who it affects
- The Court left the approval question unanswered; S. G. no longer needed protection from the challenged practice, while Camreta remained a child-protective-services worker.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
G. no longer needed protection from the practice, wiped out part of the appeals court’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded), leaving that issue unanswered.
Sarah Greene sued on behalf of her daughters after saying Bob Camreta and a deputy interviewed one daughter at school without a warrant or parental consent.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that Camreta needed a warrant before conducting an in-school interview.
Question presented
Does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant, a court order or parental consent before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused?
What the Court decided
Holding
A separate jurisdictional problem requires the Court to dismiss this case at the threshold: The case is moot. In a dispute of this kind, both the plaintiff and the defendant ordinarily retain a stake in the outcome. That is true of Camreta, who remains employed as a child protective services worker, and so has an interest in challenging the Ninth Circuit’s ruling requiring him to obtain a warrant before conducting an in-school interview. But S. G. can no longer claim the plaintiff’s usual stake in preserving the court’s holding because she no longer needs protection from the challenged practice. 588 F. 3d 1011, vacated in part and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court said the dispute was no longer live (moot) because S. G. no longer needed protection from the challenged practice. Camreta remained a child-protective-services worker and still had an interest in challenging the warrant ruling, but that did not preserve S. G.’s stake.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Breyer
- Sotomayorwrote separately
- Dissenting · 2disagreed with the result
- Thomas
- Kennedywrote the dissent
From the opinions
“Dictum, though not precedent, may have its utility; but it ought not to be treated as a judgment standing on its own.”
What's next
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. The Supreme Court left the warrant, court-order, and parental-consent question unresolved.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Camreta
Opinion added: Camreta
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.