and Plaintiff was in the process of moving to a new apartment. Defendants state that Officer O’Brien had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based on the backed up bathtub; the gas in the apartment not working correctly; old food in the sink and around the apartment; razor blades and cigarette butts on the floor; very little food in the refrigerator and cupboards; the “vicious” pit bull with access into the kitchen; and Plaintiffs and her son’s ages. “A police officer violates an arrestee’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizure if he or she makes a warrantless arrest without probable cause.” See Olsen v. Layton Mills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir.2002) (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The Court, therefore, must determine whether
holding that the clear and convincing standard must apply in terminating the parentchild relationship after the children have been adjudicated dependent or neglected holding that it is in the interest of both parents and children that parents have ultimate authority to make medical decisions for their children unless neutral fact finder determines through due process hearing that parent is not acting in childs best interests holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children holding there was not probable cause to arrest parents for child abuse even though the facts weakly supported an inference that the children were being neglected because the officer failed to question the parents medical personnel or other caretakers which would have provided information that the children were not being neglected