Wesby v. District of Columbia
412 U.S. App. D.C. 246
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Around 21 people attended a late‑night party at a DC house after being invited by a woman called “Peaches,” who was not present when police arrived.
- MPD officers responded to a neighbor’s complaint of illegal activity and observed loud music, scantily clad women with money in garter belts, drinkers, and some guests scattering when police entered; no one on scene claimed to live there.
- Officer Parker spoke with Peaches (who said she invited people but later acknowledged she lacked permission) and with the alleged owner, Hughes, who said Peaches had not finalized a lease and had not given the guests permission to be there.
- Sergeant Súber, after speaking to Peaches, ordered arrests for unlawful entry; arrests were later charged as disorderly conduct. Officers testified they observed no conduct justifying disorderly conduct.
- Sixteen arrestees sued for false arrest under § 1983 and common law; the district court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs against Officers Parker and Campanale (individual capacity) and against the District on negligent supervision; jury later awarded damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry | No probable cause: Plaintiffs were invited by someone they reasonably believed was lawful occupant, negating requisite intent | Probable cause existed because owner denied permission and the house’s circumstances and guests’ behavior were suspicious | No probable cause: invitation from Peaches (uncontroverted at arrest) negated the mens rea element; reasonable officers could not conclude Plaintiffs knew entry was against owner’s will |
| Probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct | No probable cause: evidence did not show disturbance of a “considerable number of persons” or risk of breach of the peace | Probable cause existed based on neighbor complaint and loud music observed by officers | No probable cause: single neighbor complaint and limited evidence of disturbance insufficient to meet statutory standard |
| Qualified immunity for officers Parker and Campanale | Officers are not immune because law clearly required probable cause for each offense and mens rea; officers knew facts negating probable cause | Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established for these specific facts and they relied on supervisor | No qualified immunity: controlling law required some evidence of each element (including mens rea) and a reasonable officer given the facts should have known probable cause was lacking |
| District negligent supervision | Plaintiffs require expert testimony; also negligent supervision fails if arrests supported by probable cause | District argued no expert needed only where supervisor was present and that arrests had probable cause | Judgment for Plaintiffs affirmed: supervisor (Sergeant Súber) directed unlawful arrests while on scene, so negligent supervision established without expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause defined by facts and circumstances known to officers)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (de novo review of probable cause legal determinations, giving due weight to inferences drawn by officers)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (probable cause need not equal conviction‑level proof but must support elements of offense)
- Carr v. District of Columbia, 587 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (officers must have reasonable grounds to believe knowledge element of offense exists)
- United States v. Christian, 187 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (some evidence supporting elements, including mens rea, is required for probable cause)
- Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303 (D.C. 2013) (bona fide belief in right to enter is a defense negating criminal intent for unlawful entry)
- Culp v. United States, 486 A.2d 1174 (D.C. 1985) (probable cause for unlawful entry where property appeared vacant/boarded and signs indicated owner’s exclusion)
- McGloin v. United States, 232 A.2d 90 (D.C. 1967) (entry into private dwelling can be unlawful even absent posted warning where circumstances indicate owner’s exclusion)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (officer’s reliance on others does not automatically confer immunity)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (objective probable cause standard governs irrespective of officer’s subjective belief)