Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the Petitioners did not act in an objectively reasonable manner in relying on a state statute, as well as standing directives from the local prosecutor's office concerning child-abuse-allegations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED An Oklahoma social worker and two law enforcement officers investigating child abuse allegations contributed to the brief removal of a minor child from his school for the purpose of conducting a forensic interview. This removal was made in reliance upon standing directives from the local prosecutor’s office and an Oklahoma statute which requires the subject child to be interviewed “at any reasonable time and at any place[.]” Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 1-2-105(B)(1). The questions presented here are: 1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the Petitioners did not act in an objectively reasonable manner in relying on a state statute, as well as standing directives from the local prosecutor’s office concerning child abuse/endangerment allegations; and 2) Whether the Court of Appeals wrongly applied a new construction of a state statute that had never previously been so construed to the actions of the Petitioners thereby depriving them of fair notice that their actions were unconstitutional; and 3) Whether the Court of Appeals wrongly applied different standards to the individual officers; and 4) Whether the Court of Appeals misapprehended significant facts with respect to Petitioner Huckaby.