Page 143 - 2019 A Police Officers Guide

We have stressed that the “specificity” of the rule is “especially important in the Fourth
Amendment context.” Probable cause “turn[s] on the assessment of probabilities in particular
factual contexts” and cannot be “reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” It is “incapable of precise
definition or quantification into percentages.” Given its imprecise nature, officers will often find
it difficult to know how the general standard of probable cause applies in “the precise situation
encountered.” Thus, we have stressed the need to “identify a case where an officer acting under
similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.” While there does not
have to be “a case directly on point,” existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the
particular arrest “beyond debate.” Of course, there can be the rare “obvious case,” where the
unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does
not address similar circumstances. But “a body of relevant case law” is usually necessary to
“‘clearly establish’ the answer” with respect to probable cause.

Under these principles, we readily conclude that the officers here were entitled to qualified
immunity. We start by defining “the circumstances with which [the officers] w[ere]
confronted.” The officers found a group of people in a house that the neighbors had identified
as vacant, that appeared to be vacant, and that the partygoers were treating as vacant. The group
scattered, and some hid, at the sight of law enforcement. Their explanations for being at the
house were full of holes. The source of their claimed invitation admitted that she had no right to
be in the house, and the owner confirmed that fact.

Even assuming the officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the partygoers, the officers are
entitled to qualified immunity because they “reasonably but mistakenly conclude[d] that
probable cause [wa]s present.”

Tellingly, neither the panel majority nor the party-goers have identified a single precedent—
much less a controlling case or robust consensus of cases—finding a Fourth
Amendment violation “under similar circumstances.” And it should go without saying that this
is not an “obvious case” where “a body of relevant case law” is not needed. The officers were
thus entitled to qualified immunity.

The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

District of Columbia v. Wesby, ____ U.S. ____, 138 S. Ct. 577199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018). U.S.
nd
Supreme Court, Jan. 22 , 2018.

EVEN A VALID ARREST MIGHT BE RETALIATION.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires the Court to address the intersection of principles that define when arrests are
lawful and principles that prohibit the government from retaliating against a person for having
exercised the right to free speech. An arrest deprives a person of essential liberties, but if there is
probable cause to believe the person has committed a criminal offense there is often no recourse

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 135 2019 Edition