Turning to the specific cases cited by plaintiffs, greatest reliance is placed on
Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir.1986).
Darryl H. involved challenges to the IDCFS policy under which caseworkers can require children suspected of being victims of abuse or neglect to disrobe for physical examination. Plaintiffs there argued that this IDCFS procedure was an unreasonable search prohibited by the fourth amendment and a violation of the right to “family autonomy” protected by the fourteenth amendment. This court held that visual inspections by government officials of normally unexposed parts of a child's body do indeed implicate fourth amendment concerns, adding that “[t]here can be little debate that the nude physical examination is a significant intrusion into the child's privacy.”
Id. at 900–01. We also held that these examinations implicate “the closely related legitimate expectations of the parents ..., protected by the fourteenth amendment, that their familial relationship will not be subject to unwarranted state intrusion.”
Id. at 901. We went on to recognize, however, the “extraordinarily weighty” interests of the state in child abuse investigations. Largely because of these countervailing interests, we held in
Darryl H. that probable cause or a warrant are not constitutionally required for visual inspection of the unexposed body of a suspected child abuse victim.
Id. at 902. Moreover, we expressly declined to rule on the constitutionality of the examinations themselves, because we could not determine whether the guidelines under which they were conducted ensured “reasonableness” for fourth amendment purposes.
Id. at 904, 908. And finally, because we found that the constitutional rights and issues involved were far from “clearly established,” we held in
Darryl H. that the individual defendants who conducted the nude examinations were entitled to qualified immunity.
Id. at 908.