## Facts

- Police responded around 1:00 a.m. to a noise/illegal-activity complaint at a house reported to have been vacant for months.
- Officers found the home sparsely furnished, dirty, and in disarray, with signs of a party (alcohol containers) and the odor of marijuana.
- Officers observed activity resembling a makeshift strip club, including women in lingerie with cash in garters giving lap dances.
- Many partygoers scattered or hid when officers entered.
- Guests gave inconsistent, vague accounts about who invited them and who had authority to host the party; several referenced a woman known as “Peaches,” who was not present.
- When contacted, “Peaches” acted evasively and ultimately admitted she lacked permission to use the house; the homeowner confirmed no one had authority to be there.
- Officers arrested 21 people for unlawful entry under D.C. law; charges were later dropped.
- Sixteen arrestees sued the District and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and D.C. law; the district court and D.C. Circuit ruled for plaintiffs, finding no probable cause and no qualified immunity, and a jury awarded damages.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry, including the element that the arrestees knew or should have known they were on the property against the owner’s will.
2. If probable cause was lacking, whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not clearly established.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the officers had probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry based on the totality of circumstances, including the house’s appearance, the party’s character, the guests’ behavior, inconsistent explanations, and information from “Peaches” and the owner.
- The Court held that, even if probable cause were debatable, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because existing law did not clearly establish the arrests were unlawful under these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause is a “fluid” concept evaluated under the totality of the circumstances from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable officer; it is not a high bar.
- Courts should not assess probable cause by isolating and discounting individual facts; officers may draw reasonable inferences from the whole picture.
- Officers need not accept a suspect’s or third party’s innocent explanation or eliminate all lawful possibilities before making an arrest when surrounding facts support an inference of illegality.
- For qualified immunity, officers are protected unless existing law placed the alleged unlawfulness of their conduct beyond debate; factually unusual scenarios often fail the clearly-established test.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the circumstances gave officers probable cause to believe partygoers unlawfully entered a home and knew or should have known the entry was unauthorized, and it further ruled the officers were protected by qualified immunity even if probable cause were uncertain.


District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018)