On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in District of Columbia, et al. v. Wesby, et al. The Court found that: (1) the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry and (2) the officers were reasonable in their belief that the arrests were lawful, and therefore were entitled to qualified immunity.
In March of 2008, the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department responded to a complaint of loud music and late-night party activities taking place in a vacant house. The officers arrived to find a large party going on in the house. The officers knocked on the door and were let in by a partygoer. Upon entry, the officers smelled marijuana and observed beer bottles and liquor cups covering the dirty floor. The officers discovered the partygoers engaging in obscene behavior in different rooms of the house.
The officers were informed that a woman, whom was not present, was the tenant and gave everyone permission to use the house for a party. When the officers spoke to the woman on the phone, she claimed that she was the tenant of the house but later admitted she was not. The officers spoke with the owner of the house who confirmed that the partygoers were not given permission to be in the house. The partygoers were then placed under arrest for unlawful entry.
This action was later brought by 16 of the 21 partygoers for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District Law. The district court held that the officers did not have probable cause for the arrests and that two of the officers did not have qualified immunity. A jury awarded $680,000 in compensatory damages, and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the officers did have probable cause and they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court found that the police officers did have probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry based on the condition of the premises and the conduct of the party goers.
Second, the Court reaffirmed the precedent that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is clear that their conduct is unlawful. The Court held that the officers were reasonable in their belief that that the arrests were lawful, and therefore were entitled to qualified immunity.
Attorneys at FHKAD routinely advise and defend law enforcement agencies with respect to civil claims. For more information contact Daniel Downey, ddowney@fishelhass.com, or Melanie Williamson, mwilliamson@fishelhass.com, by email or at (614) 221-1216.