In its opinion in D.B. v. Kopp, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district judge’s dismissal of an equal protection “class of one” claim against Grant County (Wisconsin) and certain officials because they “overzealously
investigated and maliciously prosecuted” D.B., a six year old, who was “playing doctor” with two five year olds.
The mother of the five year old twins was the adult who discovered the interaction and who “reported the incident to her sister-in-law, whohappened to be the regional supervisor in charge of the stateagency that administers family and children’s services.” The father of the twins was a public official in the town. D.B. alleges that he was singled out, “charged” with sexual assault although the twins admitted their actions were the same, and that D.B. was “subjected to an overbearinginvestigation and unjustified court proceedings based onimproper political favoritism.”
In rejecting the claim, the Seventh Circuit found that the fact that the twins’ mother witnessed D.B.’s actions was sufficient to support the state’s actions. It reasoned that while
political connections may also plausibly explainwhy D.B. was targeted for investigation and the twins werenot. But the test for rationality does not ask whether the benignjustification was the actual justification. All it takes to defeat theplaintiffs’ claim is a conceivable rational basis for the differencein treatment.
(emphasis in original). The opinion added that:
We are not suggesting that this was a well-administeredinvestigation, or a wise exercise of prosecutorial discretion, forthat matter. Our decision today should not be understood asan endorsement of this use of state power, which strikes us(assuming the allegations are true) as a troubling overreactionto a situation that could and should have been handledinformally. It’s easy to understand why the twins’ motherwould be alarmed and upset, but it’s also reasonable to expectthat the response by Grant County officials would be measuredand proportionate. As the district court aptly put it, accusinga six-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault shows “poorjudgment at best.” But poor judgment does not violate theConstitution.
Surely, there might be cases in which “poor judgment” would “violate the Constitution,” but the court finds this is not one of those cases.
RR
[image via]
[corrected: Seventh Circuit]