Arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday featured a case about the immunity of police officers who busted some partiers at a vacant District of Columbia house.
The questions in front of the Justices have potentially far-reaching impact on policing procedures. One question: Did the police have the right to arrest the party participants after some of them told the officers they had been invited to the empty house or they had heard they were permitted to be there? The other: Did the officers have qualified immunity from being sued by the partiers since they were conducting their official duties at the time?
The facts of the case are interesting, since the party in question happened in March 2008. Two officers responded to a neighbor’s complaint of a party out of bounds at a house that had been unoccupied for several months. At the scene, the officers saw 21 party goers inside the house, in various states of celebration. Several of the party guests told police they were invited there by a woman named Peaches. The officers spoke to Peaches on the phone, who said she had given permission to the folks to use the house and she would possibly be renting the property. But on further questioning, Peaches acknowledged she didn’t have the current owner’s permission to use the house. The home’s owner also confirmed to police the party goers didn’t have permission to be at the house. The officers then arrested the party goers, but prosecutors didn’t prefer charges against them.
The incident didn’t sit well with 16 of the detained guests, who sued the two police officers and the District of Columbia. They claimed the police violated their Fourth Amendment rights because there wasn’t probable cause for their arrests. The United States District Court in the District of Columbia awarded about $1 million in damages to the party goers. A split federal appeals court also ruled against the officers and the District, rejecting arguments that the officers shouldn’t have to pay damages directly since they were making a judgment call while on duty.
The District and the officers then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s decision conflicted with other federal courts and the Supreme Court’s own precedents.
During the proceedings, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend of the court brief supporting the party guests. In March, the Justice Department filed its own brief supporting the officers and the District.
For one hour in Court, the Justices mostly focused on the case’s details. Justice Stephen Breyer in particular seemed skeptical the police without substantial probable cause could arrest party goers who claimed they were invited to a party. “You are saying that anytime a policeman goes into a house and there's a party and people tell you, somebody invited me, and it turns out that that somebody didn't have a right to be in the house, you can arrest them?” Breyer told a Justice Department attorney.
Another controversy debated by the Justices was about comments made in court about the income levels of neighborhoods justifying different actions by police who are called to the scene of a party complaint.
But for the most part, the Justices seemed focused on the details about the officers’ perceptions of the party scene and the statements made by the party goers to police.
“I guess one of the things that -- that strikes me as why there's resistance here, is that when looked at from the point of view of the reasonable partygoer, it looks a little bit different,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “And I -- I take the point that that's not the standard, but we are setting rules and those rules are going to affect how police officers act in the future as well.”
Scott Bomboy is editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
