DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. THEODORE WESBY
Supreme Court of the United States, Thomas, Jan. 22, 2018,
Probable Cause – Officers had probable cause to arrest attendees of a drug and stripper party occurring inside of a vacant dwelling without permission of the owner where facts could reasonably have suggested that the party-goers knew that they did not have permission to be there

Court declines to decide “what precedents—other than our own—qualify as controlling authority for purposes of qualified immunity”

Facts:
District of Columbia police officers responded to a complaint about loud music and illegal activities in a vacant house. Inside, they found the house nearly barren and in disarray. The officers smelled marijuana and observed beer bottles and cups of liquor on the floor, which was
dirty. They found a make-shift strip club in the living room, and a naked woman and several men in an upstairs bedroom. Many partygoers scattered when they saw the uniformed officers, and some hid. The officers questioned everyone and got inconsistent stories.
Some partygoers said that it was a bachelor, but couldn’t identify the bachelor. Two women who said that they were “working” the party identified “Peaches” as the house’s tenant and said that she had given the partygoers permission to have the party. But Peaches was not there. When the officers spoke by phone to Peaches, she was nervous, agitated, and evasive. At first, she claimed that she was renting the house and had given the partygoers permission to have the party, but she eventually admitted that she did not have permission to use the house. Moreover, none of the partygoers identified Peaches as the host.
After the owner was contacted and confirmed that he had not given anyone permission to be there, the officers arrested the partygoers for unlawful entry under DC law.
Several partygoers sued for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District law. The District Court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry and that two of the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.
After a jury trial, damages were awarded nearing $1 million.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed and affirmed the judgment, holding that because two of the partygoers claimed that “Peaches” invited them it was unreasonable for the officers to believe that there was probable cause.
The officers then requested review from the Supreme Court.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the officers had probable cause and would also have been entitled to qualified immunity. The officers had plenty of reasons to believe that the partygoers and Peaches were lying.

Probable Cause – A warrantless arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in the officer’s presence

Note: Maryland law will also allow a warrantless arrest committed outside the officer’s presence under certain circumstances

Probable Cause – Probable cause “is not a high bar” and requires only a “substantial chance” of criminal activity. Probable cause does not require complete certainty that the suspect committed the crime in question.

From the Case: Officers here made an “entirely reasonable inference” that the partygoers were knowingly taking advantage of a vacant house as a venue for their late-night party. This was based on: 1) The condition of the house suggested that it had been vacant for months, 2) Partygoers fled from the police on arrival and told obvious lies regarding why they were there, 3) Police noted drugs, strippers, and sex on a bare mattress occurring in the house, 4) “Peaches,” the alleged host, wasn’t present and refused to come back to the house, eventually admitting that she was not allowed there.

Probable Cause – Mens Rea- Deliberately “furtive actions” and flight at the approach of law officers are strong indicators that an individual is knowingly involved in criminal activity

Probable Cause – Mens Rea- Untruthful and evasive answers in response to police questioning can support a reasonable belief that the person is knowingly involved in criminal activity

From the Case: “Some of the partygoers claimed the event was a bachelor party, but no one could identify the bachelor. The officers could have disbelieved them, since people normally do not throw a bachelor party without a bachelor.” Based on the vagueness and implausibility of the partygoers’ stories, the officers could have reasonably inferred that they were lying and that their lies suggested a guilty mind.

Probable Cause – Probable cause is considered in light of all of the circumstances; it is not supposed to be dissected and considered without looking at all of the pieces

From the Case: When it comes to probable cause, “the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts”

Probable Cause – Probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts.

From the Case: The DC Circuit was wrong to “brush aside the drinking and the lap dances as ‘consistent with’ the partygoers’ explanation that they were having a bachelor party.” Rather than assuming innocent conduct, the court “should have asked whether a reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a “substantial chance of criminal activity.”

Qualified Immunity – An officer is immune from suit for violation of the US Constitution unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”

Qualified Immunity – Conduct is “clearly established” if it would be “clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Note: What a court considers “clear” may not be the same as an officer in the field. A court will consider an issue “clearly established” if a controlling authority has decided the issue (For MD Officers: US Supreme Court, 4th Circuit, MD Court of Appeals, MD Court of Special Appeals).

Qualified Immunity – To be “clearly established,” there does not have to be “a case directly on point.” However, existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular arrest “beyond debate.”