Page 60 - TPA Journal May - June 2018
P. 60
reason to discredit everything she had told them. that it could dismiss outright any circumstances
For example, the officers could have inferred that that were susceptible of innocent explanation.
Peaches lied to them when she said she had invited For example, the panel majority brushed aside the
the others to the house, which was consistent with drinking and the lap dances as consistent with
the fact that hardly anyone at the party knew her the partygoers explanation that they were having
name. Or the officers could have inferred that a bachelor party. And it similarly dismissed the
Peaches told the partygoers (like she eventually condition of the house as entirely consistent
told the police) that she was not actually renting with Peaches being a new tenant. But
the house, which was consistent with how the probable cause does not require officers to rule out
party-goers were treating it. a suspects innocent explanation for suspicious
facts. As we have explained, the relevant inquiry
Viewing these circumstances as a whole, a
is not whether particular conduct is innocent or
reasonable officer could conclude that there was
guilty, but the degree of suspicion that attaches to
probable cause to believe the partygoers knew
particular types of noncriminal acts. Thus, the
they did not have permission to be in the house.
panel majority should have asked whether a
have permission to be in the house. reasonable officer could concludeconsidering
all of the surrounding circumstances, including the
In concluding otherwise, the panel majority (The
plausibility of the explanation itselfthat there
Circuit Court of Appeals) engaged in an
was a substantial chance of criminal activity.
excessively technical dissection of the factors
supporting probable cause. Indeed, the panel The circumstances here certainly suggested
majority failed to follow two basic and well- criminal activity. As explained, the officers found
established principles of law. a group of people who claimed to be having a
bachelor party with no bachelor, in a near-empty
First, the panel majority viewed each fact in
house, with strippers in the living room and sexual
isolation, rather than as a factor in the totality of
activity in the bedroom, and who fled at the first
the circumstances. This was mistaken in light
sign of police. The panel majority identified
of our precedents. The totality of the
innocent explanations for most of these
circumstances requires courts to consider the
circumstances in isolation, but again, this kind of
whole picture. Our precedents recognize that the
divide-and-conquer approach is improper. A factor
whole is often greater than the sum of its parts
viewed in isolation is often more readily
especially when the parts are viewed in isolation.
susceptible to an innocent explanation than one
Instead of considering the facts as a whole, the
viewed as part of a totality. And here, the totality
panel majority took them one by one. For
of the circumstances gave the officers plenty of
example, it dismissed the fact that the partygoers
reasons to doubt the partygoers protestations of
scattered or hid when the police entered the
innocence.
house because that fact was not
sufficient standing alone to create probable For all of these reasons, we reverse the D. C.
cause. Similarly, it found nothing in the record Circuits holding that the officers lacked probable
suggesting that the condition of the house, on its cause to arrest. Accordingly, the District and its
own, should have alerted the [partygoers] that they officers are entitled to summary judgment on all of
were unwelcome. The totality-of-the- the partygoers claims.
circumstances test precludes this sort of divide-
Qualified Immunity
and-conquer analysis.
Under our precedents, officers are entitled to
Second, the panel majority mistakenly believed
56 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
