Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
U.S. Supreme Court justices during oral argument Oct. 4 showed that in spite of years sitting on benches, they still know how to party ( District of Columbia v. Wesby , U.S., No. 15-1485, argued 10/4/17 ).
Arguments before the court revolved around a party held at a vacant home in Washington, D.C., held by a host named “Peaches,” who claimed that she had just rented the house.
More than a dozen in attendance were arrested with a lawsuit ultimately challenging whether officers had probable cause to haul them down to the station for unlawful entry, a misdemeanor.
The suit came about when party-goer Theodore Wesby sued the officers for his arrest, arguing that none of the party-goers had the required mental intent to break the law because they didn’t know Peaches hadn’t actually moved in to the house yet and was technically trespassing.
In response, police claimed they were protected by qualified immunity, which insulates officers from being held liable for reasonable conduct while doing their jobs.
What ensued before the court was a dynamic discussion involving modern party culture, past lives of justices, and what police versus party-goers might find suspicious.
Robert A. Parker and Todd S. Kim, from the solicitor general’s office on behalf of the District of Columbia, maintained that the circumstances police encountered gave them a reasonable assumption that the party was not authorized by the owners.
Kim and Parker cited at least one out of the several phone calls made to the police that informed officers the house was vacant, a fact Wesby disputed. Both attorneys also argued that police knew young people regularly broke into houses in the neighborhood to host parties.
When police arrived on the scene, they saw a mostly bare home with just a mattress, folding chairs, a dirty floor, the smell of marijuana, strippers, and “used contraception” on the floor, both attorneys said.
The utilities were working, but no one seemed to know who or where the host was, they said. Some claimed to be in attendance for a birthday party and others said a bachelor party, but no one could identify the guest of honor, they said.
But justices seemed unconvinced that these facts provided the officers with probable cause to arrest the party-goers.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it’s not commonplace to ask to see someone’s lease or deed when you’re invited to a party, even if the apartment is relatively unfurnished.
Everyone has moved into a new place with just a mattress and some folding chairs, said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, making one of the more conservative observations.
Justices pushed back on the idea that young people would leave a party because they didn’t know the host.
“I might be more familiar with the Middle Ages,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said to laughter, “but my understanding is that someone might say, ‘Joe is throwing a party,’ and then 50 people will show up.”
Justice Elena Kagan went even further, arguing that the presence of drugs likely wouldn’t deter young people from a party because it never deterred her.
“In my youth, I remember going to parties,” Kagan said. “And marijuana may have been present at those parties. You wouldn’t just say, ‘I gotta get out of here.’ Isn’t arrest a bit harsh?”
“They just know that Joe is having a party and they’re having a good time,” she concluded.
But Parker said other facts were present that could alert police to unlawful entry like the presence of strippers or the house being in disarray.
Justices didn’t seem to buy those facts either, noting that Peaches said it was a bachelor party.
“And what happens during a party?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked. “Disarray.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Jessica DaSilva in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
Full transcript at http://src.bna.com/s62.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)