by Brian Lawrence On January 22, 2018, The United States Supreme Court made a decision on a case involving what defines probable cause for arrest and officer liability for false arrest. The DC Metropolitan Police Department responded to a noise complaint. When they arrived at the noisy house, they entered and found a party with many people drinking and watching women dance with money tucked into their underwear. The host of the party was not present; so the police called her. She said that she had permission from the owner to have the party, but the police called the owner only to find that it wasn’t true. They promptly arrested the people at the party. Sixteen of those arrested sued the District of Columbia and the officers for false arrest, a case in which the federal district court sided with the partygoers. The Court of Appeals for DC said that the officers did not have probable cause for entry and that they didn’t have invulnerability from liability. The courts cited DC law stating that probable cause for arrest due to unlawful entry exists only if those being arrested knew that they were in the house against the will of the owner at the time of arrest. The courts determined that because the host of the party said that they had permission, the partygoers were unaware that they were there unlawfully. The courts held the officers responsible because the partygoers did not know they were there illegally and therefore were arrested falsely, in violation of their fourth amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back to them for a retrial. The unanimous decision said that the officers had probable cause to arrest the people at the party because the lower courts took into account only individual factors of the case and not the entire scene of the party. Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that, had the officers taken into account the totality of the party, there may have been substantial amounts of criminal activity on which charges could be based. The Supreme Court stated that the officers should have immunity from liability for false arrest, because it was not clear that it was a false arrest at the time. The Supreme Court believes that it was reasonable to arrest the people at the party, and cites 42 U. S. C. §1983 as a code of law exempting the officers from liability. It is important to note that while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg did agree with the decision, they believe that the officers did the right thing for the wrong reason. Justice Ginsburg stated that the lead officer at the event should have understood the law better, and that the police should have known not to arrest the partygoers if they didn’t know that they were in the house unlawfully. She also stated that she fears that the decision “sets the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection.” Justice Sotomayor said that she disagrees with the court’s ruling that there was probable cause to arrest the people at the party. She claimed that although the officers’ freedom from liability should be enough to reverse and remand the case, the Supreme Court should leave the probable cause decision to the DC courts. This is important because the case sets a precedent that other cases may use in the future in order to prove that police have probable cause for arresting people in similar circumstances and that they are not necessarily responsible for a false arrest in such an event.
0 Comments
by Brian Lawrence A lot has been happening in the United States recently with regard to immigration. This article’s purpose is to summarize the current state of immigration policy in the U.S., and to inform about bills that will possibly be passed into law in the near future.
Recent Changes to Laws: First things first: What is DACA? DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is a memorandum created on June 15, 2012 by the Department of Homeland Security that allows children who arrive in the U.S. to delay their deportation by 2 years if they meet specific requirements. It is currently in the process of being phased out by the Department of Homeland Security (all specifics explained in another article). Current Bills Circulating in Congress: Securing America’s Future Act: The Securing America’s Future Act is a bill that was introduced on 1/10/18, and will make many changes to immigration policy if it becomes a law. The bill looks to:
This bill will shift the United States’ policy on Immigration to work toward more isolationist ends. The idea is that the people that already live in the United States will be able to benefit from having the country’s resources devoted to them, and won’t have to share them with any new citizens. The legislation cites safety as a main reason for reforming immigration policy, assuming that Americans are less dangerous than people from other countries. Moving the responsibility of strengthening the southern border from the judiciary branch of government to the president’s cabinet is an important part to note in the checks and balances that exist within the federal government. Kate’s Law: Kate’s Law will simply, if passed into law, provide harsher punishments for people who attempt to come into the country without a visa for any attempt past the first, instead of simply deporting them. Any person without a criminal record will be fined, jailed for up to 2 years, or both. If the person does have a criminal record, they may be sentenced with a punishment that scales with the magnitude of their history. For example, a person with three misdemeanors may be imprisoned for up to 10 years or fined, and a person who has been convicted for murder may receive up to 25 years and a fine. Kate’s Law has currently passed the House of Representatives without needing any amendment on June 29th, 2017. No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act will, if passed, make it illegal for any state or city government to restrict the federal government from obtaining immigration-related information on any individual, notifying the federal government, or complying with federal government requests regarding immigration. Any jurisdiction failing to follow this Act would lose federal funding for law enforcement. This legislation has passed the House of Representatives on June 29th, 2017 without amendment. The current state of immigration: According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website, sanctuary cities are causing disruptions to their work. Sanctuary cities are cities that refuse to notify the ICE when they arrest a person who is in the United States without legal permission. They state that “sanctuary jurisdictions like Los Angeles prevent ICE from arresting criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail” due to the cities’ control over local jails. In response, the ICE began to conduct their arrests out in the community, and arrest anyone that they deem suspicious. The ICE judges people based on their appearance and generally arrests them while they are at work, which means that the ICE is profiling people and often arresting innocent citizens of the United States. The purpose of the ICE is not to profile people and arrest them over suspicion, but to keep the country safe from criminals who have entered the country without permission. The legality of sanctuary cities and whether the ICE are overstepping their boundaries are two hotly contested topics in the discussion about U.S. immigration. |