Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2018

District of Columbia v. Wesby

583 U.S. 48 | 138 S. Ct. 577 | 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 | 2018 U.S. LEXIS 760

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that probable cause must be assessed from the whole factual picture, not fact by fact, and that officers receive qualified immunity unless clearly established law squarely forbids the arrest in the circumstances they confronted.

Background

Around 1 a.m., District of Columbia police responded to reports of loud music and illegal activity at a house neighbors said had been vacant for months. Inside, officers found a nearly unfurnished and disordered house, alcohol containers and a marijuana odor, a makeshift strip club, sexual activity upstairs, and partygoers who scattered or hid when police entered. The attendees gave vague and inconsistent accounts of who had invited them and why they were there.

Two women said that a woman known as “Peaches” rented the house and had authorized the party. But Peaches was absent, evasive when reached by phone, and eventually admitted that she lacked permission to use the house. The owner confirmed that neither Peaches nor the partygoers had permission. Officers arrested 21 attendees for unlawful entry; at the station, they were charged with disorderly conduct, and the charges were later dropped.

Sixteen attendees sued the District and officers for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and District law. The District Court held that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry and denied qualified immunity to two officers. A divided D.C. Circuit affirmed, treating Peaches’ asserted invitation as defeating probable cause absent evidence that the partygoers knew the invitation was invalid. The Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the officers had probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry.

Holding

Yes. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer could conclude that there was a substantial chance that the partygoers knew they lacked permission to be in the house.

Reasoning

Probable cause is assessed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer and depends on probabilities, not proof beyond doubt. It requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, and the inquiry must consider the entire factual picture rather than isolate individual facts.

The house’s condition supported an inference that it was vacant and that the attendees knew it. Neighbors reported it had long been vacant; it was almost bare, with only a few metal chairs and a bare mattress; and it lacked ordinary signs that someone had moved in, such as personal possessions, clothing, or moving supplies. Limited signs of habitation, including utilities, blinds, food, and toiletries, did not eliminate the reasonable inference that the owner had retained the utilities or that partygoers had brought some items.

The nature of the party reinforced that inference. Officers encountered a loud late-night gathering involving alcohol, apparent marijuana use, a makeshift strip club, and sexual activity in a nearly empty, dirty house. The Court reasoned that ordinary homeowners generally do not permit this sort of activity in their homes, allowing officers to infer that the attendees understood the event was unauthorized.

The partygoers’ reactions and explanations also mattered. Many scattered upon seeing uniformed officers, while two hid in a closet and bathroom. Their accounts were vague and implausible: some called the event a bachelor party but could not identify a bachelor, and no attendee could clearly identify who had invited them. Officers could reasonably infer that evasive or implausible answers reflected consciousness of guilt.

Peaches’ statement did not require officers to accept the partygoers’ claimed innocence. She was nervous and evasive, refused to return because she feared arrest, initially claimed she had permission, and then admitted that she did not. The owner confirmed she lacked authorization. Her lies gave officers reason to discredit her claimed invitation or to infer that the partygoers knew she lacked any right to use the house.

The D.C. Circuit erred by dissecting each fact separately and dismissing facts merely because each might have an innocent explanation. The proper question was whether all the facts together, including the plausibility of the innocent explanations, gave rise to a substantial chance of unlawful entry. They did.

Issue #2

Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 false-arrest claims.

Holding

Yes. Even if probable cause had been absent, no clearly established law made it beyond debate that these arrests were unconstitutional in these particular circumstances.

Reasoning

Qualified immunity protects officers unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The required specificity is especially demanding in Fourth Amendment probable-cause cases, because probable cause turns on context-sensitive judgments about probabilities. Usually, plaintiffs must identify controlling or persuasive precedent involving sufficiently similar circumstances, unless the violation is obvious without precedent.

The relevant situation involved partygoers in a house reported and appearing to be vacant, conduct suggesting they treated it as vacant, scattering and hiding when police arrived, inconsistent stories, a purported host who admitted she had no right to use the house, and an owner who confirmed the lack of permission. Even if officers were mistaken about probable cause, their conclusion was objectively reasonable under those circumstances.

The partygoers identified no precedent holding that an arrest in materially similar circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. Nor was this the rare obvious case in which no body of comparable case law was needed to put officers on notice that their conduct was unlawful.

The D.C. Circuit relied too heavily on District law recognizing that a bona fide belief in a right to enter can defeat criminal liability for unlawful entry. That principle did not clearly establish that officers had to treat the asserted invitation as uncontroverted, could not infer knowledge from the partygoers’ conduct, or had to accept their innocent explanation at face value.

Existing decisions reasonably suggested the contrary. District precedent allowed officers to infer a suspect’s state of mind from conduct, and other cases indicated that officers need not credit a suspect’s innocent explanation, especially where it was implausible or contradicted by surrounding circumstances. Thus, the legal landscape did not clearly prohibit the arrests.

Concurrences

Justice Sotomayor

Reasoning

Justice Sotomayor agreed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and therefore agreed that the D.C. Circuit’s judgment should be reversed. In her view, that conclusion alone resolved the federal §1983 claims.

She disagreed with the majority’s decision to decide the underlying probable-cause question. The question was heavily factbound, and the Court did not need to reach it to dispose of the federal claims. Although the majority reasoned that addressing probable cause could resolve the remaining District-law claims as well, Justice Sotomayor believed the lower courts should address those claims in the first instance.

Justice Ginsburg

Reasoning

Justice Ginsburg agreed that qualified immunity required reversal because the unlawfulness of the arrests was not clearly established by settled law. She therefore concurred in the judgment to that extent.

She questioned the Court’s rule that an officer’s actual reason for making an arrest is irrelevant so long as objective facts could establish probable cause for some offense. The supervising sergeant apparently ordered arrests based on the mistaken view that an owner’s lack of consent alone established unlawful entry, without regard to whether the partygoers knew or should have known their entry was unwelcome.

Justice Ginsburg also noted that the partygoers ultimately were charged with disorderly conduct, even though officers at the scene testified that they had observed no conduct justifying that charge. She expressed concern that the Court’s objective-probable-cause doctrine, associated with Whren and Devenpeck, gives police too much insulation from accountability. She would leave open whether an officer’s actual reason for acting should sometimes matter to the Fourth Amendment analysis.