District of Columbia v. Wesby
138 S.Ct. 577 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining probable cause for a warrantless arrest, courts must examine the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, rather than dissecting each factor in isolation. Officers are not required to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts when the circumstances, viewed as a whole, suggest a substantial chance of criminal activity.
Facts:
- Police responded to a complaint about a loud party at a house that neighbors stated had been vacant for months.
- Upon entering, officers observed the house was nearly unfurnished, dirty, and in disarray.
- The officers smelled marijuana, saw alcohol containers strewn about, and discovered a makeshift strip club in the living room and evidence of sexual activity in an upstairs bedroom.
- When the uniformed officers arrived, many partygoers scattered and some hid in closets and bathrooms.
- When questioned, the attendees gave vague and inconsistent stories, such as claiming it was a bachelor party without being able to identify the bachelor.
- Two attendees said a woman named "Peaches" had invited them and was renting the house.
- Police contacted Peaches by phone; she was evasive and eventually admitted she did not have permission to use the house.
- The homeowner confirmed that he had not given permission to Peaches or anyone else to be on the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Sixteen arrested partygoers (Wesby et al.) sued the District of Columbia and five police officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District law.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment to the partygoers, finding that the officers lacked probable cause and were not entitled to qualified immunity.
- Following a trial on damages, a jury awarded the partygoers a total of $680,000.
- The District of Columbia and the officers (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia and the officers (petitioners).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did police officers have probable cause to arrest partygoers for unlawful entry where the totality of the circumstances—including the vacant and disordered state of the house, the partygoers' furtive behavior, and their implausible explanations—suggested they knew they lacked permission to be there, despite their claim of having been invited?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry. Probable cause is a fluid concept based on the totality of the circumstances, and the collection of facts here created an entirely reasonable inference that the partygoers knew they were trespassing. The court reasoned that the condition of the house (nearly barren and messy), the nature of the party (strip club, sexual activity), the partygoers' flight upon seeing police, and their vague and implausible explanations all pointed toward a guilty mind. The lower court erred by engaging in a "divide-and-conquer analysis," viewing each fact in isolation and improperly dismissing suspicious facts that were susceptible to an innocent explanation. The officers were not required to credit the partygoers' story of being invited, especially after the supposed host, Peaches, admitted she had no right to be in the house. Separately, the officers were also entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law, based on a case with similar facts, would have put a reasonable officer on notice that making these arrests would violate the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
This opinion concurs in the judgment only. The Court should have resolved the case solely on the basis of qualified immunity, which was sufficient to reverse the lower court's judgment. It was unnecessary for the Court to reach the merits of the fact-bound probable cause question, as the lower courts could have handled the remaining state-law claims after the federal claims were dismissed on immunity grounds.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
This opinion concurs in the judgment that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under current precedent. However, it questions the Court's doctrine, established in cases like Whren v. United States, that an officer's subjective state of mind is irrelevant to the probable cause inquiry. The supervising sergeant ordered the arrests based on a mistaken understanding of the law, believing the owner's lack of consent was sufficient without considering the partygoers' knowledge or intent. This precedent may set the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability, and the Court should be open to reexamining in a future case whether an officer's reason for acting should factor into the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for probable cause, explicitly rejecting a 'divide-and-conquer' approach where each piece of evidence is evaluated in isolation. It affirms that law enforcement can rely on common-sense inferences from a collection of suspicious facts, even if each fact alone might have an innocent explanation. The ruling also raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking to overcome qualified immunity in false arrest cases, underscoring the need for a precedent with highly similar facts to demonstrate that the unlawfulness of the officers' conduct was 'clearly established.'
Unlock the full brief for District of Columbia v. Wesby