138 S. Ct. 577 (2018)
On March 16, 2008, around 1 a.m., District of Columbia police officers responded to a complaint about loud music and illegal activities at a house in Northeast D.C. that neighbors, including a former neighborhood commissioner, reported had been vacant for several months.1 Upon arrival, the officers heard loud music and, after knocking, entered the house where they found it in disarray with no furniture except a few padded metal chairs and a bare mattress, smelling of marijuana, and littered with beer bottles and liquor cups on a dirty floor.2
Inside the living room, the officers observed a makeshift strip club where women in bras and thongs were giving lap dances to men holding cash and alcohol.3 Upstairs they found a naked woman with several men on the bare mattress along with lit candles, open condom wrappers, and a used condom on the windowsill.4 Many of the 21 partygoers scattered or hid upon seeing the officers, including one in a closet and another in the bathroom who refused to come out.5
The officers interviewed the partygoers who gave inconsistent stories about a bachelor party without identifying the bachelor and claimed invitations from a woman named Peaches who was not present.6 When contacted by phone, Peaches initially claimed to be renting the house and had given permission but became evasive and eventually admitted she lacked permission, which the owner later confirmed he had not granted to anyone.7
The officers arrested all 21 for unlawful entry.8 They were transported to the station and charged with disorderly conduct before being released and having the charges dropped.9 Subsequently, 16 of the partygoers sued the District and five officers for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District law.10 The district court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs finding no probable cause and denying qualified immunity.11 A jury awarded $680,000 in damages plus nearly $1 million total with fees.12 The D.C. Circuit affirmed before the Supreme Court granted certiorari.13
Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers?14
To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.15 Because probable cause deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances, it is a fluid concept that is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. It requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.16 Probable cause is not a high bar.17
Yes. Considering the totality of the circumstances drawn from the established facts, the officers made an entirely reasonable inference that the partygoers knew they did not have permission to be in the house.18 The condition of the house, nearly barren and in disarray with only a few padded metal chairs and a bare mattress along with the smell of marijuana and the dirty floor littered with beer bottles and liquor cups, indicated that most homeowners would not permit such activities. The partygoers' conduct, including scattering and hiding when the officers arrived, the makeshift strip club in the living room, and the scene upstairs with a naked woman and men on the bare mattress with open condom wrappers and a used condom, allowed common-sense conclusions that the partygoers knew their presence was unauthorized.19
Their inconsistent stories about a bachelor party without identifying the bachelor and claims of an invitation from the absent Peaches, combined with Peaches' nervous agitated and evasive behavior on the phone where she ultimately admitted lacking permission as the owner confirmed, supported inferring that the partygoers were lying and possessed a guilty mind.20 The panel majority erred by viewing each fact in isolation rather than as part of the whole. It dismissed circumstances susceptible of innocent explanation instead of asking whether a reasonable officer could conclude there was a substantial chance of criminal activity.21
The officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry.22
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor agreed with the majority that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity and thus concurred in the judgment reversing the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.23 However she disagreed with the majority's decision to reach the merits of the probable-cause question.24 She noted that the qualified-immunity decision alone might resolve the state-law claims of false arrest and negligent supervision.25
Given the lack of a dispute on an important legal question and the heavily factbound nature of the probable-cause determination the Court should not have reached that issue.26
Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment in part.27 She questioned whether the Court in assessing probable cause should continue to ignore why police in fact acted.28 She pointed out that the sergeant instructed the arrests based on an error of law.29 He believed that the absence of the premises owner's consent sufficed to justify arrest for unlawful entry without regard to whether the partygoers knew or should have known their entry was unwanted.30
She expressed concern that the Court's jurisprudence sets the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection.31 She would leave open for reexamination whether a police officer's reason for acting should factor into the Fourth Amendment inquiry in some circumstances.32
Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity?33
Under our precedents officers are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.34 Clearly established means that at the time of the officer's conduct the law was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful.35 In the warrantless arrest context a body of relevant case law is usually necessary to clearly establish the answer with respect to probable cause.36 Even assuming the officers lacked actual probable cause they are entitled to qualified immunity if they reasonably but mistakenly concluded that probable cause was present.37
Yes. Even assuming the officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the partygoers they are entitled to qualified immunity because given the circumstances with which they were confronted they reasonably but mistakenly concluded that probable cause was present.38 The panel majority and the partygoers failed to identify a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances.39 This is not an obvious case where a body of relevant case law is unnecessary.40
The panel majority's reasoning that under clearly established District law a suspect's bona fide belief of a right to enter vitiates probable cause was not settled law.41 There was no controlling case holding that a bona fide belief defeats probable cause or that officers must accept a suspect's innocent explanation at face value.42 Several precedents suggested the opposite.43
The officers are entitled to qualified immunity.44