Concurrences are underrated. Though they don't serve as the primary explanation for a court's ruling, they can add crucial context to majority opinions and shape how we interpret them—and the law generally. For a reminder of this, we can look to the concurrence in the legal odyssey that is McMurry v. Weaver.
A short primer: In October 2018, Megan McMurry left her two kids—a 14-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son—in her gated apartment complex in Midland, Texas, while she traveled to a job interview in Kuwait. She hoped to relocate the family there to be closer to her husband's deployment in the Middle East. McMurry arranged for a neighbor to check on the children while she was away and for co-workers to take her son to Abell Junior High School, where McMurry was a teacher. (Her daughter was homeschooled.)
When Alexandra Weaver, a school resource officer, was reminded of McMurry's trip, she was dismayed (though it's worth noting that McMurry had previously notified Weaver of the plan). Weaver told her supervisor, Officer Kevin Brunner, after which the two traveled to the McMurry home—which Weaver searched without a warrant—seized McMurry's daughter sans a court order, declined to let her contact her father, and called Child Protective Services. The agency concluded the situation did not meet its threshold for abuse or neglect.
