the community caretaking function as an alternative to “a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing” under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), is still a “subject of debate” in the courts, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment illegal detention claim); Tinius, 321 F.Supp.2d at 1078 (it was not clearly established whether community caretaker exception applied to officers’ actions in restraining plaintiff during a medical procedure that was being conducted for non-investigatory purposes). In this circuit, however, there is a definite standard regarding the forced, warrantless removal of a person from his own home for “community caretaking” reasons. See Collins v. Bellinghausen, 153 F.3d 591, 596 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Nord, 586 F.2d
holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units holding that although the father did not have physical custody of his children at the time they were removed the children were nonetheless effectively removed from both their parents when they were removed from the physical custody of the mother and placed in another home pursuant to the dispositional decree holding child welfare worker entitled to qualified immunity where child removed on reasonable suspicion of abuse holding that police officers acting at the request of a social worker were entitled to qualified immunity when they removed a frail elderly woman from her home because they had sufficient information to lead them to reasonably believe that the woman was in need of immediate aid