District of Columbia v. Wesby

In March 2008, District of Columbia police responded to a late-night party at a vacant house. Partygoers claimed a woman named “Peaches” had permission to be there, but the property owner confirmed no authorization. Officers arrested 21 attendees for trespassing; charges were soon dropped. Theodore Wesby and other arrestees sued the District and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied summary judgment for the officers, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, finding no probable cause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and on January 22, 2018, issued its decision addressing both probable cause and qualified immunity.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit. It held that the totality of the circumstances—including the late hour, the condition of the vacant house, and the guests’ implausible story—provided at least arguable probable cause. The Court ruled the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because any mistake in assessing the situation was reasonable and did not violate clearly established law.

Whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest the party attendees for trespassing, and, even if probable cause was lacking, whether the officers were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established.

The ruling reinforced broad police protections under qualified immunity, making it more difficult to sue officers for warrantless arrests in legally ambiguous situations. It intensified national debate over police accountability and spurred renewed legislative and public calls for reforming or abolishing the qualified immunity doctrine.