Shelby Welter, on behalf of themselves v. Detective Janice Wilson, Bella Vista Police Department

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2531
___________________________
Shelby Welter, on behalf of themselves and their minor children, A.R.B. and
K.N.W., as parents and guardians; Dean Welter, on behalf of themselves and their
minor children, A.R.B. and K.N.W., as parents and guardians; Stephanie Hutchins,
on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.H. and L.H. as parent and legal
guardian
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Detective Janice Wilson, Bella Vista Police Department
Defendant - Appellee
Detective Reid Hudgens, Bella Vista Police Department
Defendant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: April 14, 2025
Filed: August 29, 2025
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
KOBES, Circuit Judge.
Concerned about illegal drug use in the home, Bella Vista Police officers took
three minor children of Shelby Welter, Dean Welter, and Stephanie Hutchins to the
Children and Family Advocacy Center for forensic interviews. The three parents
sued Detective Janice Wilson1 on behalf of themselves and the children, alleging the
children were unlawfully seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district
court2 granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Reviewing de novo,
we affirm. See Manzano v. S.D. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 60 F.3d 505, 509 (8th Cir.
1995) (standard of review).
Police first responded to the home where the Welters and Hutchins were living
for a suspected overdose. They found pills on a table and the floor, including one
that tested positive for fentanyl. They were called back a week later when the victim
of the first overdose overdosed again, this time fatally. Children were present.
Several months later officers found traces of THC in the home’s trash. Police,
including Detective Wilson, executed a search warrant and found marijuana and
drug paraphernalia scattered around, including a still-smoking bong. Both Shelby
and Stephanie were there, along with two children. During an interview five days
later, Dean said that adults regularly smoked at the home, but that they tried to send
the kids out of the room when smoking marijuana. Police notified the Arkansas
Department of Human Services of possible child endangerment.
Two days later, Detective Wilson and two other officers returned to the house
to take the minor children to a forensic interview. The parents objected, demanding
a warrant. Detective Wilson responded that no warrant was necessary, that no one
could accompany the children to the interview, and that they would be arrested if
they interfered. The officers never went into the house but ultimately left with two
1 Claims against the other defendants are not at issue on appeal.
2 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
children. A different officer picked up another child from school. After questioning,
the children were allowed to go home with their parents. This lawsuit followed.
Detective Wilson is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) she violated a
federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of her conduct was
“clearly established” at the time. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–
63 (2018). A right is “clearly established” if “every reasonable official would
understand that what [s]he is doing is unlawful.” Id. at 63 (cleaned up).
Absent reasonable suspicion of child abuse, removing children from parental
custody violates the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment interest in “the care, custody,
and management of their children.” Mitchell v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs., 959 F.3d
887, 897 (8th Cir. 2020). But the Welters and Hutchins only sued under the Fourth
Amendment.3 And they have not alleged a violation of their own Fourth Amendment
rights—e.g., that they too were unlawfully seized or their home was unlawfully
searched.4 That leaves us with the Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their
children.
Children have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures. Mitchell, 959 F.3d at 900 (citing Riehm v. Engelking, 538
F.3d 952, 965 (8th Cir. 2008)). The Welters and Hutchins argue that “remov[ing]
children from their parents’ custody violates [that] constitutional right if the removal
occur[ed] without reasonable suspicion of child abuse,” Stanley v. Finnegan, 899
3 The district court granted summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment
only, the Welters and Hutchins appealed this claim only, and they unequivocally
disclaimed any Fourteenth Amendment interest at oral argument. The argument is
forfeited or waived. See Dreith v. City of St. Louis, 55 F.4th 1145, 1149 (8th Cir.
2022) (forfeiture); Heuton v. Ford Motor Co., 930 F.3d 1015, 1022 (8th Cir. 2019)
(waiver).
4 The parents now suggest that “this case presents the issue of ‘constructive
entry’” or “may actually be a direct entry of the home by agents of the police case,”
but they did not raise the argument below and we will not consider it on appeal. See
Mitchell, 959 F.3d at 900.

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2018), and that Detective Wilson violated that clearly
established right when she took the children without reasonable suspicion.
“[A] reasonable officer in [Detective Wilson’s] position could have believed
she had reasonable suspicion” that the children were in danger. Waters v. Madson,
921 F.3d 725, 736 (8th Cir. 2019) (defining “arguable reasonable suspicion”). Their
home was littered with drugs and drug paraphernalia, someone recently died there
after a second overdose, and the children were plausibly exposed to ambient
marijuana smoke. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(h)(1) (abuse includes
“permitting a child to consume or inhale a substance not prescribed by a physician
that has the capacity to alter the mood of the child including . . . [m]arijuana”).
Under the clearly established prong that is enough. Waters, 921 F.3d at 736.
The parents do not dispute this evidence but argue that the district court erred
by “neglect[ing] to focus” on the “actual events at the time of the removal.” They
emphasize that when Detective Wilson removed the children, she did not see drugs
or drug paraphernalia, the children were reasonably clean and well-nourished, and
there was no “immediate evidence” of drug exposure. But the ultimate question is
whether her suspicion was reasonable at the time of removal—not whether evidence
supporting it appeared contemporaneously. See Stanley, 899 F.3d at 629
(“[W]hether there was reasonable suspicion of child abuse warranting removal must
be determined by analyzing the totality of the circumstances at the time of the
removal.”). The “totality of the circumstances” includes evidence of child abuse
Detective Wilson already “knew [of] at the time.” See United States v. Slater, 979
F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We do not ask an officer to turn a
blind eye to recent, credible evidence of endangerment because there was not more
evidence at the moment of removal.
The parents argue separately that there were no exigent circumstances that
would have allowed Detective Wilson to take their children into protective custody
without a warrant. See generally Dimock ex rel. Dimock-Heisler v. City of Brooklyn
Ctr., 124 F.4th 544, 550–51 (8th Cir. 2024) (officers may enter a home without a

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
warrant under exigent circumstances); Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle,
427 F.3d 525, 533 (8th Cir. 2005) (seizure of children from boarding school without
a warrant was “not reasonable because there was neither probable cause nor exigent
circumstances”). In their reply brief they go further, proposing for the first time that
the reasonable suspicion standard should be replaced with a new one: “probable
cause of child abuse plus exigent circumstances.” But this case does not involve a
warrantless entry into the home, so we do not decide whether exigent circumstances
would have excused one. And “[w]e have never held that children have a Fourth
Amendment right not to be separated from their parents absent probable cause to
believe the parents are guilty of child abuse.” Stanley v. Hutchinson, 12 F.4th 834,
842 (8th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). If the children’s claims hinge on us making
new law, that alone would entitle Detective Wilson to qualified immunity. Id. at 843
(“To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear
foundation in then-existing precedent.” (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 63)).
Affirmed.
____________________________

-- 5 of 5 --