District of Columbia v. Wesby
583 U. S. ____ (2018) (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining probable cause for an arrest, officers must examine the totality of the circumstances rather than considering each fact in isolation, and are not required to rule out a suspect's innocent explanation for suspicious facts. Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for unlawful arrest unless the law was so clearly established at the time that every reasonable official would have understood that the arrest was unlawful.
Facts:
- Police received a complaint about a loud party and illegal activities at a house that neighbors reported had been vacant for months.
- Upon arriving, officers heard loud music, and after entering, they found the house nearly barren of furniture, in disarray, and smelling of marijuana.
- The living room was being used as a makeshift strip club, and upstairs, officers discovered a naked woman, several men, and used condoms on and around the only mattress in the house.
- When officers appeared, many partygoers scattered, and some hid in a closet and a bathroom.
- When questioned, the partygoers gave vague and inconsistent answers, such as claiming to be at a bachelor party but being unable to identify the bachelor.
- Two attendees said a woman named “Peaches” had invited them and was renting the property.
- Officers spoke to Peaches on the phone; she was evasive, gave conflicting stories, and eventually admitted she did not have permission to use the house.
- The homeowner confirmed to the police that he had not given permission to Peaches or anyone else to be in the house.
Procedural Posture:
- Sixteen of the arrested partygoers (Wesby et al.) sued the District of Columbia and five of the arresting officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging false arrest.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment to the partygoers, ruling that the officers lacked probable cause for the arrests and were not entitled to qualified immunity.
- After a trial on damages, a jury awarded the partygoers a total of $680,000.
- The District of Columbia and the officers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision.
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 individuals for unlawful entry when, despite the partygoers' claim of being invited, the totality of the circumstances—including the vacant and disordered state of the house, the nature of the party, and the partygoers' conduct—suggested they knew or should have known they were trespassing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry. The determination of probable cause requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances, and here, the combination of facts created an entirely reasonable inference that the partygoers knew they were not supposed to be there. The court reasoned that the vacant and dilapidated condition of the house, the illicit and debaucherous nature of the party, the partygoers' flight upon the officers' arrival, and their vague and implausible explanations all pointed toward a guilty mind (mens rea). The lower court erred by engaging in a 'divide-and-conquer analysis,' viewing each fact in isolation and accepting potential innocent explanations, whereas the correct approach is to view the 'whole picture.' The officers were not required to credit the partygoers' story of being invited by Peaches, especially after Peaches herself proved unreliable and admitted she lacked permission. Furthermore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no precedent 'clearly established' that an arrest under these specific circumstances would be unlawful. The law was not so settled that the unlawfulness of the officers' conduct was 'beyond debate.'
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
This opinion agrees that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and for that reason, concurs in the Court's judgment to reverse the lower court. However, it disagrees with the majority's decision to also rule on the merits of the probable cause question. The qualified immunity holding was sufficient to resolve the federal claims, and the Court should have allowed the lower courts to handle the remaining state-law claims without the Supreme Court weighing in on the heavily fact-dependent probable cause issue.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
This opinion agrees with the judgment that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under the Court's current precedent, as the law was not 'settled.' However, it expresses serious concern about the Court's objective Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which ignores the actual, subjective reason for an officer's actions. In this case, the supervising sergeant ordered the arrests based on a misunderstanding of the law—he believed the owner's lack of consent was sufficient for unlawful entry, regardless of what the partygoers knew. The opinion questions the wisdom of precedents like Whren v. United States and suggests that the Court should, in a future case, reexamine whether an officer’s reason for acting should factor into the Fourth Amendment inquiry.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the 'totality of the circumstances' test for probable cause, explicitly rejecting a 'divide-and-conquer' approach where courts analyze each piece of evidence in isolation. It affirms that officers can make common-sense inferences about a suspect's mental state from circumstantial evidence and are not required to accept innocent explanations at face value. The ruling also reinforces the high bar for overcoming qualified immunity, emphasizing that the law must be 'clearly established' with a high degree of specificity, usually requiring a precedent with very similar facts. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue police for false arrest in novel or ambiguous situations, thereby providing officers with broader protection from liability.
