Full opinion text
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it — and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again — and that is well; but she will never sit down on a cold one any more. Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar. M. Twain, Following the Equator ch. XI at 107 (Harper Bros. ed.). Plaintiffs instituted this action seeking injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 based upon an investigation by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) concerning allegations of child abuse. The district court denied injunctive relief, the § 1985 claim was dismissed, and only four defendants remain after district court proceedings. In this appeal, we are required to decide whether these remaining defendants, DHS employees, are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for activities which occurred during an investigation of a shelter/home for children operated by plaintiffs-appel-lees, Clark and Sharon Snell. Defendants-appellants, Michael Sweptson (County Supervisor; Oklahoma County Child Welfare Field Services, Division of Children and Youth Services (DCYS)), Barbara Sieck (Social Services Supervisor; Oklahoma County Child Welfare Unit), Benita Levingston (Social Worker; Oklahoma County Child Welfare Unit), and Pam Padley (Assistant General Counsel; DHS) appeal from the district court’s denial of absolute and qualified immunity. We review the denial of immunity de novo as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817-18, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463, 465 (10th Cir.1989). Given the facts, we agree with the district court that the three non-attorney defendants challenging the denial of absolute immunity (Sweptson, Sieck and Levingston) were acting in an investigative, rather than a prosecutorial capacity, and accordingly, we affirm the denial of absolute immunity for these defendants. On narrower grounds, we affirm the district court’s decision that the defendant DHS attorney (Pad-ley) is not entitled to absolute immunity. We determine that defendant Padley, though acting in a prosecutorial capacity, did so without authority when she applied to the district court for assistance with the investigation of the Snells. As to the defense of qualified immunity, we agree with the district court that obtaining a court order, used to gain entry into the Snell home, based upon information known to be false clearly violates the fourth amendment, and a reasonable public official would have known this. Thus, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity for such conduct. I. At the outset, we note that our review of the district court’s order is limited to deciding whether absolute or qualified immunity was properly denied to these four remaining defendants given the trial court’s decision that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial. Snell v. Tunnell, 698 F.Supp. 1542 (W.D.Okla.1988). Although the district court resolved other issues in its lengthy opinion, we do not pass on the merits of the issues which encompass the grant of summary judgment in favor of other defendants, including Mary Asbury (District Supervisor; Child Welfare Field Services, DCYS) and Conley Tunnell (Assistant Director; DHS; DCYS). We also do not pass on claims involving the grant of qualified immunity to the defendants. In their brief, the Snells have challenged the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the defendants on the Snells’ due process (liberty) and privacy claims. Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees at 37-39. We have recognized the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction to decide otherwise non-ap-pealable issues, see State of Colo. v. Idarado Mining Co., 916 F.2d 1486, 1491-92 (10th Cir.1990); Tri-State Generation & Transmission v. Shoshone River Power, 874 F.2d 1346, 1351-53 (10th Cir.1989), and have applied the doctrine in cases involving claims of immunity to determine that a plaintiff’s substantive claims were barred, see Petrini v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1482, 1483 (10th Cir.1990); Hill v. Department of the Air Force, 884 F.2d 1318, 1320 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 110 S.Ct. 2206, 109 L.Ed.2d 532 (1990); see also Dube v. State Univ., 900 F.2d 587, 598-600 (2d Cir.1990); 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3914.20 (1990 Supp.). However, even assuming that our jurisdiction could extend to a plaintiff’s cross-appeal from a defendant’s interlocutory appeal of a denial of immunity, see Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 571 (2d Cir.1986) (cross appeal of grant of immunity permitted where issues same as direct appeal of denial of immunity to other defendants), the plaintiffs in this case have not filed a cross-appeal. In all of the above cases, the court of appeals considered an exercise of jurisdiction to consider otherwise non-appealable issues raised by an appellant or cross-appellant. Thus, in Idarado, Tri-State, Petrini, Hill, Dube and Barrett, the only pendent issues considered were those raised by an appealing party. In no case did a court reach out to decide an issue when the party adversely affected had not appealed the adverse order. Accordingly, we simply do not have jurisdiction over the due process and privacy issues. Appellate resolution of those issues must await another day. A. Plaintiffs Clark and Sharon Snell use their private home as a foster care environment for children whose natural parents are unable to care for them. The Snells’ natural and adopted children, as well as children the Snells care for under various guardianship and custody arrangements, reside in the home. On August 26, 1987, defendant Padley applied to the juvenile division of the state district court seeking the court’s assistance with a DHS investigation, after the district attorney, who normally would file such an application, refused repeatedly to become involved. The supporting grounds of the application provided in part: 1. DHS has received allegations of neglect, lack of supervision, child prostitution and child pornography in the Snell’s home in violation of 21 O.S. §§ 848-48. 2. DHS has received allegations that the Snells are effectively operating an unlicensed emergency shelter, child care facility, or foster home in violation of the Oklahoma Child Care Facilities Licensing Act, 10 O.S. § 401 et seq. 3. DHS has been unable to complete the child abuse investigation due to lack of cooperation by the Snells. 4. Due to the child abuse allegations and reports received of numerous children being placed into and out of the Snell’s home, DHS is concerned regarding the health, safety and welfare of the children residing with the Snells. The number and identity of the children residing with the Snells is unknown. In re Child Abuse and Licensing Investigations of the Clark and Sharon Snell Home by the Oklahoma Dep’t of Human Serv., Application at 1 (Okla. County Dist. Ct. Aug. 26, 1987), reproduced in rec. vol. I, doc. 1, ex. A. Primarily on the strength of the allegations of pornography, prostitution and denial of access to the children, the state district judge issued an ex parte order authorizing DHS personnel, accompanied by the police, to enter the Snell residence and investigate these allegations. In re Child Abuse and Licensing Investigations of the Clark and Sharon Snell Home by the Oklahoma Dep’t of Human Serv., Ex Parte Order at 1 (Okla.County Dist.Ct. Aug. 26, 1987), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. A. The ex parte order directed that the children in the Snell home be placed in protective custody if the Snells could not produce a valid custody order for each child or if the welfare of the children was endangered. Id. at 1-2. Because the Snells could not produce documents evidencing court-ordered custody, seven children were removed from the home and placed in a juvenile shelter. At a subsequent hearing, the police detective involved in the case testified that the only allegations of child pornography came from defendants Asbury, Levingston and Sweptson. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. O at 68; see also id., ex. W at 18-19 (tracing pornography and prostitution allegations to defendant Levingston). Although two complaints about the lack of supervision and order at the Snell residence had occurred, Snell, 698 F.Supp. at 1549, the child prostitution and pornography allegations were groundless, assuming arguendo that such allegations were ever received. B. The Snells and certain DHS employees have experienced less than an amicable relationship. A variety of alleged complaints against the Snells, ranging from improper supervision to failure to return children, have been processed by DHS over the years. The Snells have complained in turn about various DHS employees and custody decisions made by DHS. In 1986, the Snells complained to DHS on two occasions concerning DHS social workers. First, the Snells complained about a DHS worker’s “inappropriate visit” to their home and questioning of Mrs. Snell. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. P at 3. Second, they disagreed with a DHS determination that a child who had been placed in the Snell home for over one year should be returned to the natural mother. Id. at 4. The Snells were uncertain that the mother was capable of taking care of the child and complained that a DHS worker had inaccurately reported information furnished by them. Id. In February 1987, they complained to the DHS, the governor’s, the attorney general’s and the district attorney’s offices about a DHS worker handling a case in another county. Id. The Snells believed that the case was mishandled and the father involved was using AFDC payments to pay restitution rather than feed his children. Id. According to the Snells, the children were neglected, lacked adequate food and may have been subject to physical abuse. Id. Allegedly, DHS revealed Sharon Snell’s name to the father and the father threatened her. Id. The Snells have had frequent visits from DHS personnel since they adopted their first child in 1981. Id. at 1. They list nine different DHS workers who have visited the home and state: “We have never denied agents of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services access to our home.” Id. at 1-2. In April 1987, two DHS Licensing Division employees (Prins Anderson and Judy Collins) made an on-site visit to resolve various complaints about the Snells and to determine whether they were in compliance with state licensing laws. The DHS employees determined that “the Snells are not in violation of the Child Care Facilities Licensing Act.” Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. S at 2. DHS social worker David McClain investigated the Snell home in July 1987, based upon an anonymous complaint of neglect and inadequate supervision. See rec. vol. II, doc. 115, ex. U. Plaintiffs’ evidence indicates that the report generated by this visit did not indicate a problem with care: The interior of the home was remarkably clean and organized with this many children about the house. The worker counted 11 children in the house. The children were clean; appeared to be in good physical health and appropriately clothed. There was evidence of daily housekeeping activity. The older children were assigned age appropriate chores to be done on a daily basis. The children gave the appearance of being well fed and happy to be a part of this household. Rec. vol. II, doc. 115, ex. V (Form CWS 14-A). The Snells would not identify the children in their care and McClain raised several questions about this in his report. While McClain was present, the Snells were in telephonic contact with their counsel. The Snells maintain that McClain indicated such disclosure was voluntary. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. P at 5, ¶ 6. They told McClain that the children in the home were adopted or were wards pursuant to legal guardianship or were there by parental consent. Id. McClain’s report, also signed by defendant Sweptson, indicates that the investigative findings were uncertain and that a copy of the report would be provided for information only to the district attorney for Oklahoma County Juvenile Court. Rec. vol. II, doc. 115, ex. V. The report’s recommendation to the district attorney for the Oklahoma County Criminal Court was that additional investigation concerning possible criminal prosecution of “non-accidental physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or neglect appears indicated.” Id. This recommendation is paradoxical given that the report makes no mention of such allegations. The Snells maintain that during his investigation, McClain made derogatory comments concerning them to neighbors and told one that the Snells had been “run out of Bethany.” See rec. vol. I, doc. 63 at 9; id. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. D at 42. This prompted a July 20, 1987 meeting between Clark Snell and DHS officials in which Snell aired his complaints about DHS. These complaints were referred to Lissa Vernon, the supervisor of Child Welfare Field Services, DCYS, who in turn referred them to Mary Asbury, the district supervisor in Child Welfare Field Services. Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. A at 24-25. Vernon also referred a complaint about the Snells to Asbury. In a memo dated July 23, 1987, Asbury discussed various allegations against the Snells: 1) they misled unnamed parents into granting them custody of children as an alternative to child welfare services (CWS), 2) they frequently complained about DHS personnel, 3) the Snells’ reporting of abuse and neglect to CWS “was more like harassment as the Snells called demanding an investigation be done immediately, several times in a short period of time,” 4) various neighbors complained about the number of children in the Snell home and the quality of care, 5) Mr. Snell was “vague” about the source of his financial assistance to operate his home, 6) although Mr. Snell claimed that his principal source of income was from an appliance repair business, a business listing appeared only in the white pages of the telephone directory without an address, 7) the assessor’s office did not list Mr. Snell as an owner of his home, which was valued at approximately $150,000, and 8) after a complimentary article about the Snells ran in the newspaper, CWS received a call from the Warr Acres police alleging that they were known drug dealers. Rec. vol. II, doc. 115, ex. 11. The tenor of Asbury’s report is best described in its concluding paragraph: In conclusion, we have a couple who on the surface appear to be wonderful philanthropic people who only want to care for children with no bureaucratic red tape. However, legitimate questions can also be raised regarding their ability to care for this number of children; the actual facts regarding these children coming into their care; the quality of the care and the source of funding. Id. DHS continued its investigation, concentrating on complaints about the Snells, rather than complaints by the Snells about DHS. C. DHS received three adverse reports concerning the Snells in late-July and early-August 1987. A neighbor complained that children from the Snell home lacked adequate supervision when playing. Id. ex. Z at 1. An in-law of Mrs. Snell’s son complained that the Snell house was dirty and the children were neglected. Id. at 2-3 and Fails depo. at 40. A retarded eleven-year old boy, G.H., whose mother could no longer cope with his severe emotional disorders, was the source of another complaint. G.H. alleged that during a temporary stay at the Snell home, Mr. Snell struck and kicked him and told him he could either go to jail, stay with the Snells, or be killed. Rec. vol. II, ex. B1 (CWS 14-A report). Mr. Snell and his housekeeper indicated that G.H.’s mental problems, including sexual and physical aggressiveness, and physical problems, including encopresis, were beyond what the Snells could handle given their responsibilities to the other children in the home. Asbury assigned the investigation of these complaints to defendant Sieck, rec. vol. I, doc. 93, ex. 1 at 2, who in turn assigned the investigation to defendant Levingston, id. ex. 6 at 1. However, action on investigating these complaints was deferred, contrary to DHS policy concerning these types of allegations. See DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures § 622.4 (10/1/84), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. I. Two days later, on August 12, 1987, a DHS meeting was held between Asbury, Vernon, defendant Padley and licensing division employees Collins and Anderson to discuss a variety of topics concerning the Snells, including: 1) the large number of children in and out of the home, 2) claims by Jesus House clients that the Snells threatened to call DHS if the parents did not release their children, 3) Clark Snell’s criminal conviction and subsequent incarceration (1974-75) and his failure to disclose this in adoptive home studies, 4) Clark Snell’s income and the likelihood that it could be derived from his appliance repair business given that the business was listed only in the white pages of the telephone directory, 5) Asbury’s incorrect belief that DARE (Drug Addict Recovery Enterprises, Inc.) did not exist and therefore could not be providing support to the Snells, 6) whether the Snells could be named guardians based upon a signed and notarized parental statement, and 7) Clark Snell’s refusal to identify the children in his care when asked by social worker McClain. Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. D at 201-24. A decision was made to refer these matters to the police for investigation and to contact assistant district attorney Rebecca McNeese for her assistance. Id. at 223-24. At the request of defendant Levingston, detective J.M. Einhorn met with defendants Sweptson and Asbury on August 14, 1987. Rec. supp. vol. II, doe. 150, ex. G at 49-50. The defendants expressed concern that: 1) a large number of children and adults were entering and leaving the house at all hours, 2) the Snell home was not licensed, 3) the Snells had refused to disclose the identity of all the children to DHS and 4) Clark Snell had not disclosed his criminal record to DHS. Id. at 51-57. The lower court viewed this meeting as “the genesis of the pornography and prostitution suspicions.” Snell, 698 F.Supp. at 1550. Detective Einhorn’s testimony concerning the source of the pornography and prostitution allegations is inconsistent. At the hearing held the day after the seven children were removed from the Snell home, he testified that these allegations were first made by DHS, specifically As-bury, Sieck and Sweptson, rec. vol. Ill, doe. 114, ex. O at 68; at a later deposition, he testified that the allegations were generated during a discussion between Sweptson, Asbury and himself. Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. G at 106-07. He could not say who initiated the allegations. Id. Einhorn indicated also that suspicion concerning child prostitution and pornography arose once he and DHS were informed that Clark Snell was sought for questioning by FBI special agent Leslie Treece. Id. at 53. Agent Treece sought Clark Snell merely to comply with a request for information from another FBI district concerning a child prostitution investigation. The FBI was investigating a person suspected of using his children for child prostitution, and this person had stayed at Jesus House for a short time. The FBI merely wanted to ask Clark Snell some questions about the suspect. As DHS was well aware, Clark Snell never was a subject of that investigation. According to agent Treece, some time prior to August 26, 1987, detective Einhorn asked her to contact defendant Levingston based upon “complaints regarding possible child pornography or prostitution, or something unusual going on at the Snells’ house.” Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. W at 16. Agent Treece met with Asbury and defendant Levingston. Rec. vol. I, doc. 160, ex. 7 at 242-44. Asbury understood that agent Treece was seeking to interview Clark Snell in connection with a man from out-of-state who had passed through Jesus House, but that Clark Snell was not the subject of inquiry. Id. at 244. Agent Treece indicated that this was the first time she had heard about allegations concerning child pornography or prostitution in relation to the Snells. She spoke to defendant Levingston who indeed made such allegations in the context of discussing complaints received by DHS against the Snells. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. W at 17-19. When the order authorizing police intervention into the investigation finally was obtained from Judge Brown, defendant Levingston invited agent Treece to be present when the order was enforced. Id. at 24-25. However, Treece declined as there was no evidence of any violation of federal law. Id. D. Rebecca McNeese, assistant district attorney and the team leader of the juvenile division at the district attorney’s office, was familiar with the DHS investigation of the Snells because DHS repeatedly sought to involve the juvenile division. McNeese indicated that her division viewed seizure of children from a caretaker as appropriate only when there is a showing of imminent or actual harm to the child. Rec. vol. II, ex. J at 7-11, 14. Normally, DHS would first contact police so the police could determine whether a child needed to be placed in custody. Id. at 11-12. If the DHS worker decided to pursue a court order through the juvenile division, the DHS worker would complete a report of the investigation (Form CWS-14A) and forward it to the juvenile division for review. Id. at 11. McNeese indicated that for strong policy reasons the division would not seek a pick-up order based upon a representation of a DHS worker that parents or guardians were uncooperative without some evidence of abuse or neglect. Id. at 15. On August 18 or 19, 1987, McNeese was approached by defendant Padley for a “favor” regarding the Snells. Id. at 29. McNeese cut the conversation off abruptly and did not learn what favor was sought. Id. Plaintiffs’ evidence .in this case tends to show that the DHS searched for a statute upon which to base their investigation of the Snells. Thus, DHS expressed concern with whether the Snells had guardianship of more than five unrelated children, see Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 58, § 773 (West 1965) (renumbered as tit. 30, § 4-101 (1990 Supp.)). For reasons hardly clear, Asbury and defendant Levingston also were concerned with the words “upon conviction” as used in Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, § 410 (West 1987), insofar as those words might apply to the Snells. See rec. supp. vol. II, ex. K at 110. About a week before Judge Brown entered the order authorizing investigation and conditional temporary custody, defendant Sweptson arranged a meeting with Clark Snell. Snell states that he was told to come without counsel, and that Swept-son was concerned about leaks to the press. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. El at 13. Sweptson then discussed the allegations of abuse made by G.H. against the Snells. Id. at 12-14. According to Snell, Sweptson told him, “ ‘You know, anything could happen with that.’ ” Id. at 14. Snell then said: “ 'You know we haven’t done anything wrong. And why can’t we have these other people at the meeting at the State Office like we did before.’ ” Id. To which Sweptson allegedly replied: “ ‘You don’t have to do anything wrong out here. All we have to do is shuffle some papers around, and we can make anything fit.’ ” Id. E. The events of August 19, 1987 as portrayed by plaintiffs’ evidence represent the first attempt to enter and remove the children from the Snell home so as to proceed with the investigation. Upon the instructions of Asbury, defendant Levingston went to the police station and talked with Captain Griffith about the guardianship statute, supra note 7, and the allegations against the Snells. Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. K at 53, 56-57. Defendant Leving-ston voiced her belief that the statute in view of the allegations justified police assistance with the investigation in the form of picking up the children. Id. at 58. Captain Griffith wanted to see the statute before intervening; later that day, Hilde Lil-legaard of the DHS licensing division and defendants Sieck and Levingston returned to the police station with a copy of the statute, but the sergeant on duty told them that he would need a court order before he could pick up the children. Id. at 54-55, 59. Defendant Sieck then informed Asbury of this turn of events. Rec. vol. I, doc. 160, ex. 7 at 264. About 6:30-7:30 p.m., defendant Sieck telephoned Asbury requesting the telephone number of Judge Brown. Id. at 264-65. Asbury and defendant Sieck were unable to reach Judge Brown; however, Asbury did reach Judge Wilson of the juvenile division. Id. at 265. Judge Wilson wanted to speak to them in person before intervening. Id. Lillegaard and defendants Sieck and Lev-ingston apparently made a field visit to the Snell neighborhood on the evening of August 19. From the home of one of the Snells’ neighbors, defendant Sieck then called Judge Brown and advised him that the Snells might be moving. Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. K at 77. She told Judge Brown of the allegations against the Snells, of the suspected violation of the guardianship statute and that the police sergeant on duty would not pick up the children without a court order. Id. at 79. Judge Brown advised that he would issue an order if she thought it was an emergency, but that he would need the number of the police station. Id. at 80-81. Although defendant Sieck viewed the situation as constituting an emergency, defendant Lev-ingston told the judge that they would get back to him with the number of the police station if they decided in favor of a removal order. Lillegaard and defendants Sieck and Levingston then called defendant Pad-ley to update her on the evening’s events; Padley indicated that she did not agree that a violation of the guardianship statute warranted removal of the children. Id. at 84-85. Apparently, assistant district attorney McNeese later was contacted by Judge Brown concerning this DHS attempt of August 19 to obtain a removal order; she indicated to the judge that DHS simply had no evidence of abuse or neglect. Rec. vol. II, ex. J at 26. McNeese understood that the judge was willing to consult with the police, but not authorize a removal order. Id. The next day, August 20, 1987, assistant district attorney Steve Sullins was approached by defendant Sieck for a pick-up order based upon the Snells’ alleged violation of the guardianship statute. Id. at 28. Sullins communicated this to McNeese, who wrote a memo to the DHS court liaison, Kathy O’Malley, expressing her displeasure with the DHS attempt to “shop” for a DA who would cooperate in obtaining a removal order given DHS’ lack of written evidence. Id. at 27-28. F. Around August 24, 1987, Asbury gave defendant Levingston a copy of a statute contained in the Child Care Facilities Licensing Act, supra note 8, which used the words “upon conviction.” Rec. supp. vol. II, doc. 150, ex. K at 107. Defendant Lev-ingston then sought an interpretation of the statute’s applicability to the Snells from several sources including another assistant district attorney, Mary (Mimi) Smith. Id. at 107-08. When the DHS court liaison learned that the Levingston’s inquiry involved the Snells, the liaison indicated that the inquiry should not be made because of McNeese’s directive. Id. at 108-09. Defendant Levingston, with the approval of defendants Sweptson and Sieck, then approached Judge Brown for an interpretation of the statute and ostensibly learned that the “upon conviction” language “did mean that it was a misdemean- or and that the parents could be arrested.” Id. at 114. To defendant Levingston, this meant that the Snells could be arrested, but on August 26, 1987 she asked detective Einhorn to call the judge and confirm her understanding of the judge’s interpretation. Id. at 116—17, 118-119. Between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., defendant Levingston learned from Ein-horn that Judge Brown was inclined to issue a pick-up order. Id. at 118. Detective Einhorn called Padley indicating that Einhorn had talked with Judge Brown. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. C at 157. The judge initially had indicated that the order would be issued to the police, but now, at least according to Einhorn, the judge wanted an application from DHS, rather than the district attorney. Id. Einhorn wanted defendant Padley to file an application which would provide the basis for entry of such an order. Id. Defendant Padley testified on deposition that she was reluctant to do so without checking with the district attorney first. Id. at 158. She instructed Einhorn to check with the district attorney; Einhorn checked and reported that the assistant district attorney considered the Snells “a DHS problem and the DA’s office is not going to get involved.” Id. at 159. Defendant Padley felt that Einhorn “was attempting to put some pressure on me to take an action.” Id. at 158. According to defendant Padley, she then recounted to Einhorn her understanding of the Snell situation to date: I told him that I knew we had pending child abuse allegations in the Snell household, both neglect and abuse, and that I knew the FBI has contacted us in reference to the Snells and had indicated they wanted to contact Mr. Snell in connection with an investigation they were doing in child prostitution and pornography, but that there were no allegations that the Snells were involved in child prostitution, pornography, trafficking of children. I then asked him if he knew of anything I didn’t know.... He [Einhorn] indicated yes, there was, that he had information that led him to believe and that he was investigating an allegation of child prostitution and pornography as to the Snell home.... He [Einhorn] indicated to me that he had been in touch with an out-of-state police department, and that there was some connection between a person that this out-of-state police department was investigating in connection with child prostitution, pornography, trafficking in children, and the Snells, and that this person was traveling back and forth between the states into the Snell household. Id. at 160-163. According to defendant Padley, Einhorn “said that he had allegations that the Snells were involved in child prostitution, pornography and trafficking children.” Id. at 164. Defendant Padley would later learn that there were no such allegations. Defendant Padley may not have been the only one who v/as led by Einhorn to believe that there was more information concerning the Snells and child prostitution and pornography; Judge Brown “was really taken aback” by the limited nature of Ein-horn’s testimony after the children were picked up, given Einhorn’s earlier representations which led to the issuance of the removal order. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. D1 at 44; see also id. at 46. G. The day of August 26, Judge Brown contacted defendant Padley, and she returned his call to find that he was on the bench, but that he wanted to set up an appointment. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. C at 159, 165. At some point during the day, defendant Padley contacted Judy Collins in the DHS licensing division. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. C at 187. According to Collins, defendant Padley discussed the idea of “getting an order to force the Snells to cooperate as it relates to licensing and looking at papers and things like that,” and asked her opinion. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. N at 47. Collins expressed her view that if it was solely a licensing issue, another field visit to the Snells was in order to request documentation on the children. Id. at 49-50. Later in the day, defendant Padley spoke with Judge Brown. He wanted her to file an application so that the court could assist in the investigation and protect the children. Id., ex. C at 169. Judge Brown relied upon defendant Padley to coordinate the factual information in the case. Id., ex. D1 at 41-42. She told Judge Brown that she would get back to him. Id., ex. C at 169. Defendant Padley then attempted to contact DHS personnel including Charles Waters, Conley Tunnell, Lissa Vernon, Prins Anderson and Mary Asbury, but was unable to reach them. Rec. vol. I, doc. 96, ex. 3 at 184. Tunnell, Vernon and Asbury have stated affirmatively that they were not involved in the events of August 26. Id. ex. 1 at 7, ex. 9 at 2, ex. 10 at 2-3. Defendant Padley did talk with defendants Sweptson, Levingston and Sieck and someone in the licensing division before preparing the application and walking it over to the judge's office. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. C at 187. The judge looked at the application and began dictating his order. Id. at 188. Defendant Padley delivered the application and order to defendant Levingston, who reviewed the order along with defendants Sieck, Padley and perhaps defendant Sweptson. Rec. vol. I, doc. 96, ex. 6 at 2. Lillegaard and defendants Sieck and Lev-ingston took the order to the police station and presented it to Sergeant George Johnson for enforcement. Id. at 3. On August 26 at about 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., Lillegaard and defendants Sieck and Levingston accompanied the police to the Snell residence and seven children were removed based upon lack of custody documents. Id. at 3. The housekeeper reported to Mrs. Snell that the group led by the DHS social workers just barged in without knocking or ringing the doorbell and proceeded to gather the children. Rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. D at 50-51. In gathering the children, Sergeant Johnson “observed that the house was generally clean and neat” and he “saw no obvious indications of child abuse or neglect.” Id. ex. E at 2. Defendants Sieck and Levingston actively assisted in the police investigation in the home. Plaintiff Sharon Snell (Mrs. Snell) arrived at home about thirty minutes after the police and DHS social workers arrived. Id. ex. D at 3. She was presented with a document which included allegations that the children were unsupervised while riding bicycles and were left at the neighbors for extended periods. Id. at 14-15. According to Mrs. Snell, defendant Levingston attempted to talk to her, but Mrs. Snell went into her bedroom and attempted to phone her husband at work and Sister Ruth at Jesus House. Unable to reach them, Mrs. Snell finally reached Eloise Harris, a DHS social worker. Id. at 11-13. Again, according to Mrs. Snell, defendant Leving-ston grabbed the telephone, slammed it down and said: “ ‘If you don’t let me — If you don’t talk to me, I will get the police in here and they will make you talk to me.’” Id. The social workers then insisted on seeing the paperwork on the children “and if I did not cooperate, ... the police would force me to cooperate. That’s what they were there for.” Id. at 15. Mrs. Snell then went from the bedroom to a desk in the living room which had the files on the children. According to Mrs. Snell, upon seeing the first court order on one of the children, defendant Sieck said: “ ‘That is not a legal document because it was rubber stamped [by the Oklahoma County District Court Clerk].’ ” Id. at 16. In the presence of defendant Levingston, defendant Sieck then directed the police: “To load up these kids, this lady does not have any legal documents on these kids.” Id. Mrs. Snell then returned to her bedroom and gave the housekeeper permission to show the records to the social workers and police. Id. at 18. During this time, Mrs. Snell tried to call Hilde Lillegaard at DHS, not realizing that Lillegaard was present and making repeated apologies. Id. at 18, 34. Over an hour later, after the police and social workers had gone through all of the Snells’ files, the police had a list of seven names for which no court custody documents had been found. Id. at 23; id. ex. E at 4. Sergeant Johnson asked defendants Sieck and Levingston if the seven children could be left with the Snells overnight because the Snells were likely to get the matter taken care of the next day. Id. ex. C at 24; id. ex. D at 4. Defendant Sieck responded: “ ‘They could run with the kids. It’s happened before.’ ” Id. ex. C at 25. According to the sergeant, he was told by DHS workers that the court’s order directed removal of the children in the absence of valid court orders concerning custody and that the circumstances in the home would not allow for interviews with the children. Id. ex. D at 4. Accordingly, Sergeant Johnson decided to take the children into custody. All during this time, the children had been placed in groups. Id. Defendant Levingston inquired about Patricia Turtle, a child with medical problems. According to Mrs. Snell, defendant Levingston then told a nearby police officer that, “ ‘no Indian tribe would ever leave a child in this home.’ ” After the decision had been made to take the children, Mrs. Snell asked defendants Sieck and Levingston if two of the seven children could remain because efforts were being made to contact their natural mother. Id. ex. C at 30. This request was denied by both defendants with the comment that the natural mother could see her children at the shelter. Id. As the DHS workers gathered the seven children, one of the children ran upstairs in an effort to hide and was retrieved forcibly by defendant Sieck. Id. at 31-32. At approximately 7:30 p.m., the seven children were taken in the rain, without blankets, without car seats for the very young and without necessary medicine, to the Oklahoma County Juvenile Center. Id. ex. D at 35, ex. E at 5, ex. F. When one of the bystanders asked if blankets would be used to cover the children given the rain, defendant Levingston reportedly said: “ ‘Children of this culture are used to the elements.’ ” Id., ex. D at 35. H. The next day, the Snells learned from counsel of the damaging child prostitution and pornography allegations. Id. at 53-54. Not revealing these damaging allegations earlier is directly contrary to the spirit, and the letter, of DHS regulations concerning mandatory disclosure by social workers in the course of child abuse investigations. See DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures §§ 622.4, 623.7(A) (10/1/84), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. I. At the hearing of August 27, 1987, detective Ein-horn testified that the allegations of child prostitution and pornography arose in DHS through Asbury and defendants Leving-ston and Sweptson. Rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. 0 at 68. On cross-examination, he denied having any other information. The allegations of child prostitution and pornography were not even colorable, and all involved concede that a removal order plainly would be unwarranted merely to learn the identities of the children in the Snell household, their relationship to the Snells, and to conduct another review of the licensing situation. See rec. vol. III, doc. 114,; ex. C at 277-78 (Padley); ex. N at 60 (Collins); ex. D1 at 43 (Judge Brown). II. Defendants first contend that they are entitled to absolute immunity in this § 1983 action because their activities as social workers are intimately associated with the judicial process. According to defendants, “[responding and investigating reports of child abuse or neglect, requesting assistance from the court in making that response, and accompanying police officers executing orders of the juvenile court are functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.” Brief of Defendants-Appellants at 29. We reject this broad proposed standard as out of step with absolute immunity precedent. A. The Supreme Court has recognized the defense of absolute immunity from civil rights suits in several well-established contexts involving the judicial process. A judge acting in his judicial capacity is absolutely immune from such suits, unless the judge acts clearly without any colorable claim of jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-05, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). A prosecutor is absolutely immune for activities which are “intimately associated with the judicial process” such as initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 994-95, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). However, the same immunity traditionally does not extend to a prosecutor’s actions which may be classified as administrative or investigative. Id. at 430-31, 96 S.Ct. at 994—96; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 811 n. 16, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2734 n. 16, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Witnesses, including public officials and private citizens, are immune from civil damages based upon their testimony. Briscoe v. La Hue, 460 U.S. 325, 341, 345-46, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 1120-21, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). In deciding questions of immunity, the Court has taken a functional approach after considering the history of common law immunity. Thus, in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508, 515-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), the Court determined that agency officials who initiate and prosecute enforcement proceedings subject to agency adjudication are entitled to absolute immunity. The rationale for according absolute immunity in the civil rights context is to incorporate traditional common law immunities and to allow functionaries in the judicial system the latitude to perform their tasks absent the threat of retaliatory § 1983 litigation. Because the judicial system often resolves disputes that the parties cannot, the system portends conflict. Win or lose, a party may seek to litigate the constitutionality of circumstances which required him to endure a lawsuit or suffer defeat. Such suits by dissatisfied parties might target judges, see Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285 (10th Cir.1989), prosecutors and witnesses. Cf. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. at 2813-14. Though such suits might be satisfying personally for a plaintiff, they could jeopardize the judicial system’s ability to function. Absolute immunity has its costs because those with valid claims against dishonest or malicious government officials are denied relief. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427, 96 S.Ct. at 993; Valdez, 878 F.2d at 1289. Still, the Court has determined that the smooth functioning of the judicial system takes precedence over those meritorious claims which will be foreclosed by granting absolute immunity. Such claims may find partial resolution through other means, however. The opportunity for subsequent judicial review of decisions made by prosecutors and for subsequent appellate review of lower court decisions provides a check upon actions clothed with absolute immunity. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 522-23, 105 S.Ct. at 2813-14. And the grant of absolute immunity does not insulate an official from the criminal process or professional discipline. Imbler 424 U.S. at 429, 96 S.Ct. at 994. Thus, “[ajbsolute immunity is ... necessary to assure that judges, advocates, and witnesses can perform their respective functions without harassment or intimidation.” Butz, 438 U.S. at 512, 98 S.Ct. at 2913. A judge must be free to make decisions, often controversial, without concern about possible personal repercussions. Stump, 435 U.S. at 363-64, 98 S.Ct. at 1108-09. In deciding which cases to pursue and hów they should be pursued, a prosecutor should not be distracted by the threat of subsequent and time-consuming and duplicative civil rights actions. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 424-26, 96 S.Ct. at 992-93. Likewise, a witness must be free to testify without fear of a later civil action, so as not to deter witnesses or influence their testimony. Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 333, 103 S.Ct. at 1114. The more distant a function is from the judicial process, the less likely absolute immunity will attach. Thus, in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340-41, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1095-96, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an officer applying for a warrant is not absolutely immune from suit, just as a complaining witness would not be entitled to such immunity. The Court reasoned that applying for a warrant “while a vital part of the administration of criminal justice, is further removed from the judicial phase of criminal proceedings than the act of a prosecutor in seeking an indictment.” Id. The Court viewed a prosecutor’s seeking an indictment as “the first step in the process of seeking a conviction,” id. at 343, 106 S.Ct. at 1097; application for a warrant often precedes this first step and serves a different function. B. Several lower courts have considered whether those involved in child protection and advocacy, including social workers and guardians ad litem, are entitled to absolute immunity. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the courts have taken a functional approach rather than one based purely on the status of the defendant involved. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224, 108 S.Ct. 538, 542-43, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). The courts have looked to the particular task a defendant was performing and its nexus to the judicial process rather than deciding that social workers or guardians ad litem as a class are entitled to absolute immunity. Although child dependency proceedings are civil in nature, they occur against a backdrop of potential criminal prosecution of the abusive parent or caretaker. A social worker’s investigation may result in the removal of children from the home and a referral to the district attorney for potential prosecution of a parent or caretaker. Thus, the civil nature of child dependency proceedings, per se, has not been a bar to absolute immunity for social workers. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1532-33 n. 18 (10th Cir.1988) (extending absolute immunity to duty to initiate civil complaint after applying functional analysis). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a rule of absolute immunity for child and dependency proceedings from origination until conclusion. In Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dep’t of Social Serv., 812 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 829, 108 S.Ct. 98, 98 L.Ed.2d 59 (1987), the court held that “social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasi-prosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child and dependency proceedings.” However, absolute immunity did not extend to a social worker’s ordering a father to stay away from his home prior to a scheduled court hearing because such a function was not quasi-prosecutorial or quasi-judicial. Id. at 1157-58. Such conduct was not that of an advocate, but rather unilateral action prior to the operation of the judicial process. Id. at 1157. Relying upon Meyers, the Ninth Circuit has held that a social worker seeking a court order for immediate apprehension of a newborn from her natural mother is entitled to absolute immunity for such quasi-prosecutorial conduct. Coverdell v. Department of Social & Health Serv., 834 F.2d 758, 764 (9th Cir.1987). In Coverdell, the social worker completed an affidavit used by the prosecutor in obtaining custody of the child. Id. at 760. Under a theory of quasi-judicial immunity, the court determined that the social worker was entitled to absolute immunity for executing the order by obtaining custody of the child and removing her from the hospital. Id. at 764-65. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit determined that absolute immunity for a social worker extends beyond the adjudication of dependency to final disposition of the case. Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 110 S.Ct. 1118, 107 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1990). Accordingly, social workers who had placed two children in a home where they were sexually abused were afforded absolute immunity. Id. The Sixth Circuit also has decided a trilogy of cases which help define the limits of absolute immunity for social workers handling child protection and advocacy matters. In Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1457-58 (6th Cir.1984), the court determined that social workers involved in prosecuting neglect and delinquency petitions in the Michigan courts were entitled to absolute immunity, along with a guardian ad litem who participated in proceedings leading to the removal of a child from his parents’ home. Id. at 1457-58; see also Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131, 144-46 (3rd Cir.1989) (guardian ad litem who testifies in court, prosecutes custody or neglect petitions, or makes reports and recommendations to court entitled to absolute immunity). Thus, social workers filing a juvenile abuse petition which resulted in a temporary emergency custody order were entitled to absolute immunity. Salyer v. Patrick, 874 F.2d 374, 378 (6th Cir.1989); accord Vosburg v. Department of Social Serv., 884 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir.1989). However, opening a child abuse case, investigating it and placing a parent’s name in a central registry concerning child abuse are not quasi-prosecutorial activities for which absolute immunity applies. Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826, 830-31 (6th Cir.1989). Rather, these activities are administrative or investigative. Id. Several cases applying a functional approach have declined to grant absolute immunity to social workers investigating child abuse allegations. In Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377, 1382-83 (10th Cir.1989), we declined to grant absolute immunity to a Kansas social worker and her supervisor based upon a decision to remove two children in preadoptive status from the home of the potential parents without an agency hearing. Applying a functional approach, we noted that the defendants’ actions “in no way related to advocacy before a judicial body,” and were not otherwise integral to the judicial process. Id. at 1383. Rather, the defendants’ decision to remove the children from the home was unilateral and occurred before the judicial process intervened; accordingly, only qualified immunity was appropriate. Id. An important prerequisite of absolute immunity in this context is that the defendant social worker “act as an actual functionary of the court, not only in status or denomination but in reality.” Gardner, 874 F.2d at 146. When the activity of the social worker is not integral to the judicial process, absolute immunity is not warranted. Spielman, 873 F.2d at 1383. In Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210, 1214 (5th Cir.1988), the court determined that the seizure of children in the absence of a court order under Texas law would not be protected by absolute immunity. The court reasoned that seizure without a court order in the face of an immediate danger seems to us more akin to the function of police than prosecutors. Policemen, not prosecutors, investigate dangerous situations and are charged with the duty, if necessary, to intervene to prevent injury. But policemen, like most other executive officials, are ordinarily not protected by absolute immunity ... unless they are engaged in a function integral to the judicial process, such as testifying as witnesses.... Id. (citations omitted). Likewise, in Austin v. Borel, 830 F.2d 1356, 1361-63 (5th Cir.1987), the court determined that the filing of an allegedly false verified complaint, which under Louisiana law initiated temporary custody of a child, but did not initiate the judicial process concerning need of care proceedings, was not entitled to absolute immunity. The court analogized the filing of a verified complaint by a child abuse worker to the seeking of an arrest warrant by a police officer; because absolute immunity would be inappropriate in the latter ease, so too would it be inappropriate in the former. Austin, 830 F.2d at 1362. C. We next consider the authority of the DHS in this matter. DHS has the authority to investigate complaints concerning whether a child care facility is required to be licensed under the Child Care Licensing Act, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, §§ 401-410 (West 1987). Id. § 401(b) (necessity of license), § 402(2) (child care facility defined), § 403(b) (Act applies to private child care facilities), § 405(b) (prior to issuance of license, DHS “shall investigate the activities and standards of care of the applicant”); DHS Division of Child Welfare Services-Policy and Procedure-Licensing §§ 661 & 689 (3/15/79) (investigation of complaints), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. M. DHS is granted authority to investigate the conditions of a licensed child care facility and to require information concerning the children being cared for by the facility. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, § 406 (West 1987). DHS also has authority to investigate complaints of child abuse and neglect. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, §§ 845, 846 (West Supp.1990); DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures § 621 (10/1/84), reproduced in, rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. I. Under Oklahoma law, a preliminary inquiry shall precede the filing of a petition to adjudicate the status of an allegedly deprived child. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, §§ 1101(10), 1103(A) & (C) (1987 & 1990 Supp.). The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine whether court action is necessary and to allow for informal adjustment. See id. & id. §§ 1101(1) & 1103(B). In Oklahoma County, where the events in this case took place, this function is accomplished by the Juvenile Bureau. See Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, §§ 602(1), 1201(A), 1204(A) (West 1987). Thereafter, “[a] petition in a juvenile proceeding may be filed by the district attorney or the person who is authorized to make a preliminary inquiry to see if further action is necessary.” Id. § 1103(B). “The petition is the first formal legal document filed with the court and initiates Juvenile Court proceedings.” DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures § 624.11 (10/1/84), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. I. When the petition is filed, -the district court obtains jurisdiction over the child alleged to be deprived. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, § 1102(A) (West Supp.1990). Frequently, however, a child may be taken into custody before a preliminary inquiry is completed or a petition is filed. When a child is taken into custody before the filing of a petition, a petition generally must be filed and a summons issued within five judicial days. Id. § 1104.1(A) (West 1987); DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures § 624.11 (10/1/84), reproduced in rec. vol. Ill, doc. 114, ex. I. If a child is taken into custody as a deprived child, see Okla.Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104(d) (West Supp.1990), the “child shall be taken immediately before a judge of the district court for the purpose of obtaining an order for protective custody.” Id. § 1107(B). The parents or guardians are entitled to a hearing within forty-eight hours. Id. § 1104.1(C) (West 1987); DHS Child Welfare Services-Child Abuse/Preventive Services Procedures § 623.7(c) (10/1/84), reproduced in rec. vol. III, doc. 114, ex. I; see also Okla.Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1107(C) (West 1990) (detention hearing must be held within one or two judicial days, otherwise child shall not be detained). In this case, an application was filed and an order for conditional protective custody issued before a preliminary inquiry or petition. Judge Brown indicated that in practice an order for protective custody frequently precedes a petition. Rec. vol. I, doc. 131, ex. 17 at 75. Other courts have determined that social workers filing pleadings for temporary custody in advance of a formal petition are entitled to absolute immunity. Vosburg, 884 F.2d at 134; Salyer, 874 F.2d at 378. We think that this case requires a different outcome for two reasons. First, the application which resulted in the pick-up order was pre-adjudicatory and sought information which would be developed in other pre-adjudicatory procedures such as court intake or a preliminary inquiry that occur prior to the filing of a petition. See Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, §§ 1101(8) & (10), 1102(A) (West Supp.1990) (“Upon the filing of a petition, the district court shall have jurisdiction of any child who is alleged to be ... deprived_”). In this respect, the statutory scheme in Oklahoma, insofar as DHS is concerned, is similar to the Louisiana scheme construed by the Fifth Circuit in Austin; we think that the Austin approach is equally applicable to this case. See 830 F.2d at 1361-63. A social worker seeking a pre-petition order for protective custody functions like a police officer seeking an arrest warrant; a functional approach to immunity requires that those performing like functions receive like immunity. Austin, 830 F.2d at 1362. The second reason why absolute immunity is not appropriate is that DHS policy indicates that DHS child welfare workers normally are to report findings of neglect or abuse, even those which might indicate a need for immediate intervention, to other authorities for further investigation or advocacy in the form of initiation of court proceedings. All of the challenged actions of defendants Sweptson, Sieck and Levingston pertain to a DHS investigation of the Snells, an attempt to create a factual basis to justify intervention and confirm allegations predominantly, if not wholly, the product of speculation and conjecture. The defendants unsuccessfully sought police participation in their investigation before Judge Brown issued his order. Moreover, defendants Sieck and Levingston assisted with the investigation made possible by the court’s order — a function associated with police work, not advocacy. We agree with the district court that child welfare workers investigating claims of child abuse are analogous to law enforcement officers who are entitled only to qualified immunity. Snell, 698 F.Supp. at 1557. We also reject the defendants’ argument that public policy requires absolute immunity because claims of child abuse are involved. See Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 919-20 (2d Cir.1987) (rejecting absolute immunity for child abuse investigations on policy grounds and accepting “strong” argument for qualified immunity). We do so for two reasons. First, immunity is strictly construed; we do not function as a legislature in enacting immunity grounds. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 811, 102 S.Ct. at 2734-35; Imbler, 424 U.S. at 421, 96 S.Ct. at 990-91. Second, as stated by the district court: While the tasks of social workers who investigate child protection matters are clearly matters of compelling interest and importance to the public, how can it be said that when these investigators allegedly violate a citizen’s constitutional rights they are entitled to absolute immunity, when highly trained FBI, DEA and Treasury agents facing identical allegations are entitled to only qualified immunity? Snell, 698 F.Supp. at 1557. To this we might add that police officers engaged in the same conduct alleged in this case would not be entitled to absolute immunity. Austin, 830 F.2d at 1362. Thus, we overrule Oklahoma federal district court decisions which have determined that absolute immunity is appropriate for DHS social workers, to the extent that these decisions are inconsistent with the rule we announce today. See, e.g., Snook v. Lunsford, No. 87-C-550-B unpub. order (N.D.Okla. Mar. 24, 1988) [1988 WL 142120]; Guest v. Moore, 706 F.Supp. 786, 787-88 (W.D.Okla.1987). The actions of defendants Sweptson, Sieck and Levingston cannot be said to be integral to the judicial process, rather the DHS activity was more akin to police work. The licensing issue had been resolved in the Snell’s favor by DHS licensing division personnel in April 1987; however, DHS elected to reexamine the factual basis of the issue shortly thereafter and needed more information. The three subsequent referrals concerning neglect and abuse in the Snell home were investigated by DHS, and the DHS brought the results of that investigation to the attention of the