Skip to main content

tv   District of Columbia v. Wesby Oral Argument  CSPAN  January 22, 2018 11:25pm-12:27am EST

11:25 pm
>> voices from the state on c-span. next, the supreme court oral argument in the district of columbia. the case revolves around the fourth amendment and probable cause arrests. he was one of several people initially arrested after attending a party thrown by someone else in a vacant house in washington, d.c.. mr. wesby filed an unlawful arrest suit. this is just under an hour. we hear arguments this morning in case 15, 1485 district of columbia versus wesby. >> mr. chief justice may i please the court. a probable cause is a practical standard and not accounts for the practical limitations officers face when making
11:26 pm
arrests decisions including the inability to look directly into the minds of suspects offering innocent explanations for suspicious conduct, and so i don a case like this one, but it's established in circumstantial evidence of mens rea but a strong or at least fair arrest is reasonable and constitutional, and more clearly qualified immunity applies. let's turn to the totality of the circumstance from the perspective-- >> before you do that, given the other charges in the case relating to disorderly conduct and negligent supervision, where do they stand and are they in any way effective in the argument? >> we do not pursue an argument existed for disorderly conduct and supervision. that claim fails if there was neither probable cause were qualified immunity. that's where they stand, your
11:27 pm
honor. if i may turn back to the totality of circumstances, my clients responded to neighbors complained-- >> i'm not sure i understand what you just said. whether we hold the qualified community grounds or probable cause, i don't think it affects those claims, does it? i think those stand on their own don't they ask >> no, your honor, the negligence would fail as a matter of law that was undisputed in the court. >> so my clients responded to a neighbor's complaints about illegal activities to a house in the residential communita resids supposed to be vacant and found a group of partiers, none of whom claimed any right of the home. the home owner-- >> i'm sorry why is it their right? if someone invites me into what
11:28 pm
they claim a is their home or place of living, if you said there's an invitation. >> a claim of invitation to-- >> i don't see a property right when i get invited into somebody's home i don't ask to look at their lease or ask for them to establish to my satisfaction or anyone else's their right to be there. i assume if they are there they can invite me in. >> we are not suggesting that there has to be some type of confirmation by any party guest of the inviter's right to invite. what we are saying instead us from the office of this perspective, looking at the totality of circumstances there was a fair probability that they were trespassing either knowingly or negligently. it's not about whether or not a party goer needs to confirm an invitation. this is from the officer's perspective if he has the probability a prosecutor leader can decide whether to press
11:29 pm
charges if there was that fair probability here based on the totality of the circumstances. so no one was supposed to be there and he hadn't been there to guard against the entry, and the house appeared vacant. it confirmed the neighbor said it was supposed to be vacant. it was in disarray and this is a quote from the report january 12 in disarray in a manner consistent with being a vacant house it looked like it was being used just for the party like no one was living there. this is the type of vacant homes trespassers target. >> to make sure i understand, the tip is a neighbor saying the home is supposed to be vacant and yet there's a party going on, it isn't just a neighbor calling ancalling and saying itd party disturbing my sleep, did that call specifically say it's supposed to be vacant, is that correct? >> that's correct, there is actually multiple calls to.
11:30 pm
>> how many were there for calls to the officers before they went there? >> before they went there. we don't know the number, your honor. we do know from the report multiple people did complain that we don't know if it was before or after the beginning of the investigation, but there were some calls before the investigation. >> peoplepeople said the house s supposed to be vacant. >> we know of at least two. >> that when the police actually entered the home they could see with their own eyes the house was unfurnished and in disarray-- >> no chairs and mattresses-- >> there were some chairs and a mattress and beer and liquor scattered about. the utilities were working. but that is consistent with the claim of right of the owner. the trespassers target they can't homes just like this one and indeed sometimes engage in
11:31 pm
the type of activities that we see here. >> were the types of anonymous? >> no, your honor, there are names in the report. >> i am told perhaps i should take this into account, that compared to the middle ages which i'm more familiar, people today can the younger people frequently say there's a party at joe's house and before you know what, 5 it, 50 people go ts house and they don't really ask themselves this joe owned the house or rent a house, it's his house into the normal assumption would be its joe's house. and nobody questions it. so, what's the evidence here that's different from that? if i think that's what happened, the people there were over there whether they knew when secondhand, third hand, whatever aren't normally naturally going to think that joe had the right
11:32 pm
to the house. but here this is different than that because-- >> for two reasons, first of i take the hypothetical, joe had the authority to throw the party-- >> not talking about his authority, i'm talking about the partygoers and what they think when they hear there is a party. i don't want to repeat myself. i am saying what i woul but i we is the normal fault in the partygoers house is no more than just what i said. there's a party at joe's house, let's go, period. now, in my mind that doesn't give any reason whatsoever for thinking that this party goer suspects, knows or believes that it is and joe's house. so i want you to tell me what's different about this case. >> what's different about this case are these facts. first it was supposed to be vacant and it was a house where the owner said--
11:33 pm
>> put yourself in the mind of the partygoers. the police then has to be thinking about the partygoers. so, one thing as the police man knows and maybe teaches this it wasn't joe's house, that's one thing so i have to ask myself is that a reason for thinking the partygoers knew it. okay what is the second? >> the absence of us suppose that host you can name it however you want, the host wasn't even there. there wer were a legal left is happening. >> let me stop you there. didn't the person that extended the invitation, hadn't she been there and said she left to go to
11:34 pm
the store but she hadn't been there? >> there was evidence that she told the officer she'd gone to the store but the partygoers didn't say that. in response to the question, she's not here. okay i'm trying to get a fully answer. i have one, the house looked vacant, number two, that in fact, peaches didn't have a right to be in the house. i want a complete list of things that makthethings that make it . >> number three, peaches wasn't fair and number four, the partygoers acted suspiciously in response to the police presence. they fled an and hated acted vey suspiciously when asked questions like who is the owner, who lives here, no one answered the questions according to deposition. and we shouldn't discount the fact peaches proved herself to be quite a basis, untrustworthy, repeatedly hung up on the police when they tried to investigate,
11:35 pm
she said she admitted to trespassing herself. given all the circumstances-- >> -- >> no that's it, nothing else. >> there is more. it can be used here as a basis for the necessary mens rea. let's remember either negligence or knowledge assuming the partygoers actually relied upon invitation and even assuming they believe she had the permission to invite them if the actual reliance was negligent nonetheless it was criminal from columbia so the court of appeals here in what i think is an impractical approach is a practical standard said they had to-their understanding of the credibility of the partygoers invitation. we don't think that is what the police officers are required to do on this team.
11:36 pm
police officers need the leeway. >> why weren't any of them arrested or are one of them said she smelled marijuana but as i understand no drugs were found. not marijuana or any other. why weren't people who were suspected of engaging in sex arrested, why weren't people standing around, the strippers arrested for those activities if they were a legal? >> everyone was arrested because officers believe it had probable cause to believe everyone in the house committed the offense of unlawful entry. specific people may have committed other crimes-- >> that they were not charged with those crimes. >> how many people were in the house? >> at the time, 21. >> can you tell me how you think
11:37 pm
that summary judgment' of the case does or doesn't matter? usually in a judgment as we say we need to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and many of these facts you could see it has one explanation or another explanation. so, how does that summary judgment standard fit with the probable cause standard and also the qualified immunity standard, how do those three things work together? >> i think the facts were undisputed and if he attempts to dispute them come from reasons of having to discuss the efforts to redraw the established facts are for the court and probable cause as a matter of law. the court puts itself in the shoes of the officer and thing was it reasonable to a rest based upon these facts and of
11:38 pm
course if their evidence is strong record will speak to >> you were happy to discuss the reasons the disputed facts come too late. what are those? >> because it was inappropriate for the respondents to wait even in the papers it's inappropriate for them to ask the court courte the first to part the record closely to consider the claim of dispute. >> why would they be asking that? why would you be entitled to summary judgment in view of the facts that they claim no? >> because the disputes are waived or forfeited and especially in the briefing and opposition before the court decided in its discretion to grant assertion to the two
11:39 pm
questions. i would note even if you took the facts that are undisputed even now and add them to the questions presented, that would be sufficient to establish probable cause as a matter of law. no matter how you would want to take the influences it wouldn't matter because again the influences are for the court and found to be the established facts. >> it didn't dispute the facts and opposition or that relate to the petition. >> that's right. they agreed. the first sentence says that the case is about among other things what happens when the owner has indicated to the police that he is not getting permission into the attempt to dispute that. if you actually look at the totality of circumstances and ts and allow the officers confused common sense, a readily available in defense would say the partygoers were not
11:40 pm
blameless tricked into someone else's house, but the simpler explanation they were trespassing. a party with drugs in the strippers in a place they thought they wouldn't be caught. >> they were not charged with this. >> unlawful entry was the charge. >> i thought that charge was not made once they were at the police station and instead they were charged with disorderly conduct. >> that's correct. the arresting officers indicated that the reason was unlawful entry. >> wasn't that because when their superior was on the scene and determined the owner wasn't there he thought that was sufficient to arrest? >> yes, your honor, that appears to be the subject of reasoning.
11:41 pm
probable cause is an object of analysis. i would like to say one word about the qualified immunity. i would hope that the debate today and the judges on the circuit filter was probable cause would be enough to salvage the constitution question wasn't beyond debate and i will preserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. chief justice may i please the court. there are two fundamental errors in the way that the lower courts analyze the question of probable cause in this case. first, they took certain important facts out of context, viewed them in isolation and engaged in the sort of divide and conquer analysis that the court has said is inappropriate. and second, they concluded that because those facts were susceptible to be innocent explanations they could not
11:42 pm
contribute to a finding of probable cause. neither of those is perfect. when police officers encounter a criminal suspect they are required to dra draw fair infers from the entire constellation of the facts drawing on practical and common sense experience. those will rarely be cleared and often save point in different directions. when they do, the court said repeatedly that the possibility of competing inferences supports, not undermines, the finding of probable cause that is especially true in the case of mens rea that isn't directly notable. the police officer cannot appear iinto the head of the criminal suspect and know exactly what he or she is thinking and just like juries and judges must rely on all of the surrounding circumstances to end for the mental state is, certainly police officers should be
11:43 pm
required to do so under the probable cause. this case presents a very good example of why these principles are appropriate and i want to be very clear at the outset what we are not saying. we are not saying that no one can accept a secondhand invitation to a party or that they cannot go to a party at the home of somebody they don't know where that when they arrive they have to inspect the least to ensure they have authority to invite them. all we are saying is if a person finds himself or herself in a compromising situation here finding themselves in a vacant home that actually is vacant where as a matter of fact they are an intruder committing the act of the crime and especially if there are surrounding circumstances that would lead an observer to think that may be what is going on, then the deck is stacked against the person.
11:44 pm
>> you are saying anytime the police man goes into the house and there's a party and people tell you somebody invited me and it turns out that somebody didn't have a right to be in the house gets arrested? >> i'm not saying that. >> there is one other thing, the other thing is if it is partially furnished. whenever you see a sparsely furnished house with some people in it and they say joe invited everybody to his house for a party and it turns out joe hadn't rented the house you could arrest and isn't that what you're saying? >> there are two answers. one is that would be precisely the bright line rule that the court hacourt has repeatedly sas not to be imposed in probable cause cases. but i think instead is requiredd is an analysis of the totality of the circumstances to
11:45 pm
determine whether the statement of the claim of an innocent until-- >> i don't see anything else here and maybe it's a question of believability. >> let me talk about the facts of this case if i can turn to that. it's useful to think of this as two sides of a ledger. there's the condition of the home and on the other side statements of the people who were there. if you think about the condition that police were spawned into a citizen complaint, multiple citizen complaints that this was a vacant home and they said they had been repeatedly exploited in the past. >> is a story of teachers gave to peaches that extended the invitation of the story is she had just leased the house, so if somebody just leased a house, but sparse furnishings would indeed at all incriminating.
11:46 pm
>> i think that is a perfectly permissible inference from the fact that described, justice ginsburg. i think our only point is that it's not the only permissible inference based on the totality of the facts. in addition to the tip they received when the officers arrived, they noticed that the condition of the home was consistent with being a vacant house it's not just that it was sparsely furnished, it had folding chairs and a mattress and was described as being in a state of disarray. if all a tab according to you with a bed and some folding chairs and some utilities where nothing had been turned off, what happens during the party so what was different in this disarray from the party?
11:47 pm
>> of the evidence in the record indicates that the house was considerably more dirty i than just an ordinary house. in fact one of the individuals said the floor was so dirty she was unwilling to sit on it. there was trash strewn about. i think all of those things would lead an officer to think that perhaps these are just particularly nasty houseguest, but this is also consistent with the type of party people would throw in a vacant house where they are not too concerned about the state they leave it in. there is much an officer can look at here and say i think i have probable cause and certainly when the qualified immunity standard is on top of that it makes it even easier for the officer. i guess one of the things that strikes me is why there is
11:48 pm
resistance. when it's looked at from the point of view from the partygoer it seems a little different and i take the point that it's not the standard, but we are setting rules and those are going to affect how police officers act in the future as well. when looked at from the reasonable partygoers view there are these parties that once long ago i used to be invited to where you didn't just know the host but joe is having a party and can i say that long ago marijuana was present at the parties and it just isn't obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say i've got to get out of here.
11:49 pm
it seems a little hard but they are subject to arrest, so how do i think about that question? i think the overarching point is that as i said, when a partygoer goes to a house if it turns out it actually is vacant and they are intruding, the police encounter upon the situation-- >> they just know that joe is having a party and they are having a good time. >> i think that is an entirely possible inference to draw but it's not the only entrance and here there's a number of things that suggest that isn't what was happening. it's not just that it looked vacant and the people would be able to observe that this looks like a situation where we should
11:50 pm
not be. it's that the individuals had nothing to dispel the probable cause. if anything they reinforced it. none of them knew who lived there and when asked who invited you almost all of them said somebody else. the record doesn't name any particular person but we do know that only two of the individuals named peaches and they were not the actual party givers themselves. when she was called a as it was explained earlier, she was evasive, she lied to the officers and said she had authority to approve a party when she didn't. didn't. it was bolted into the understanding of the facts and suggest they may be hearing a story that is true both from the
11:51 pm
partygoers and peaches and i think that when they arrived at the scene and see the process of being committed they can at least reasonable debate could reasonably think the people here know what they are doing. that isn't always going to get you over the probable cause because as i said thi this is an areas susceptible to those sort of bright line rules but it's going to inform of a prudent officer who was exercising and appropriate level of skepticism when viewing these sort of people would think. >> thank you, counsel. >> the court should affirm the grant of respondent summary judgment motion uniformly told
11:52 pm
police they been invited to a party, the host corroborated the statements and the owner confirmed the host wasn't a stranger come she' she then invd in the negotiations that ultimately fell through. petitioners now maintained there was probable cause to arrest because the party involved stripping and drinking and marijuana s so this activity stopped for a partygoer on unnoticed. >> there was more involved the petitioner is relying on then those things you just listed. you went through six different items that were not limited to the fact. >> there was also the fact you are correct she was at the party that is undisputed. they arrived and she has left a. they also mentioned disarray and the status of the home. i think in fact the status of
11:53 pm
the home is undisputed in terms of what was there and many things were left out some of me explain them, the bed, the chairs which were not fooled and chairs can see that from the pictures in the record. the stereo, the utilities were on, someone was paying the utility bills, there were candles, food and the refrigerators, window coverings, shower curtains so they say that it was vacant but it's certainly not under the definition of dc law, so they must mean when the people arrived the condition of the house was such they should have realized they are not supposed to be there. >> does it matter if the tips they had said that it was a complex >> i think it is hard to decipher. the police report at 112 where there were two calls and we don't know who exactly said what because it doesn't distinguish between them but three pieces of information were given, vacant,
11:54 pm
activity and loud music. he comes in and files an affidavit that seems quite different from that and says it used to be vacant about a month ago i started seeing people using the house. >> became part of the thing is with the officers were told and whether it was reasonable for them to act. >> it certainly was reasonable for them to act. we don't dispute this is what they maintain a district court. certainly at that point with a tip comes in, they can go to the house, investigate what's going on which they did. the question is what develops into probable cause and most importantly what is the evidence that these individuals knew they were not supposed to be here or at least were negligent. >> what should the officers have done? to >> i think there are several things they could have done here. number one, they now had information from the owner that he didn't want him there and they could have asked the
11:55 pm
individuals to leave and if they had this unlawful entry. they could have issued a citation for disorderly conduct that wouldn't have raised concerns of all. they could have investigated it as they now maintained baseball of marijuana smoke and one heard about prostitution. they certainly could have investigated those crimes. i think it is interesting or telling they could have come out this anytime and said we on the debate arrested for unlawful entry that had probable cause for other things with its misconduct, marijuana, prostitution, they never suggested the probable cause to arrest anybody for the other crimes. >> the key things i have not fully taken in, you put your position and that of the officer. two people tell you this is a vacant house and it is now i isn they knew i guess that there was
11:56 pm
evidence of this that there were vacant houses in the area used for parties. they know also that it is a vacant house, and those are the things then they look around and it looks sort of vacant, not completely that sort of, and so that together leads them to think these people knew it was a vacant house an and with a reasonable officer have concluded that the partygoers knew it was a vacant house and if so that is enough because it is trespassing to go into a vacant house. with the other stuff they have. it is trespassing to go into a vacant house? >> no-- >> if the house is actually vacant or abandoned, it's not trespassing because somebody's not maintaining their control over it. if it is prima facie evidence
11:57 pm
that it is boarded up for otherwise not to be entered in the one fact that wasn't talked about here is that there was no evidence of boarding up or evidence of forced entry. >> when the people nearby called and said the house is vacant, do you think they were referring to the technicalities of the district of columbia law and that nobody wa was living there lacks >> that's correct i do think that's right, and then the question arises these partygoers, did they have reason or did they know that it was supposed to be vacant? the host told the partygoers she just moved in. the police actually knew this because she told the sergeant boehner is supposed to be fixing the house up for me. we also obviously are in a low income neighborhood, so our point opowerpoint on the statuse home is that a partygoer going
11:58 pm
to the home wa would not infer simply because of its condition there must be something wrong with-- >> the fact that you mentioned is troubling, you say it is a low-income neighborhood and i just wonder if we moved all of these facts to an affluent community and what the neighbors said when they called the police is, you know, our neighbor, joe, who is the ceo of this and that company were officer in a big company has been transferred to another city and has moved out and the house is unoccupied, would you be making the same argument lacks >> it depends on what the party looks like. >> it looks exactly like this party. >> then i think the police need to--it's exactly the same except the party is in potomac.
11:59 pm
>> it would be a closer case. >> why would it be a closer case, it's a different neighborhood we don't care what goes on? >> we are looking at it from the police officers commonsense perspective, and it certainly seems common sense if you were in the river terrace, the condition of the home doesn't look the same as it might in northwest he is some of the police ought to take into consideration. >> this is important to me. in fact, the house under dc law wasn't vacant, and indeed if the officers which is unlikely, had known all of these details, they would know it isn't vacant. but it is a citizen and owned by or rented by the person who supposedly invited them to the party, then the question becomes what he reasonable officer have
12:00 am
believed that they were trespassing if and only if there is some reason that person could have believed that they knew the person who invited them first, second or third hand didn't have the right to be there? ..
12:01 am
>> and they construed the facts in their faith here but not until the brief that said not only should you reverse the demotion but also that you never disputed these facts so i encourage the car to look at the statement in support of summary judgment they never mentioned five of the seven facts. >> but they did mention in their petition rule 15 makes it perfectly clear if you do not challenge that assertion then you are bound by those assertion we make the judgment whether to take a case to set forth in recent opposition. i read your brief and opposition again in fact that
12:02 am
you conceded the fact by which he relies. >> but that is from summary judgment. >> it doesn't matter the motion this or that. and she recanted her claim. and then to repeat the assertions and others did not challenge them. >> i am not sure that i have much to add but if the question is whether to say had directed judgment in our favor should be unambiguous if they will change that brief and they should have made that clear because there are two different motion and you don't necessarily look at summary
12:03 am
judgment. >> but i do think you take the fact that they asserted. >> we don't dispute those facts and i would also note those cases where the fact so we are not asking to move any question but it is now extended in the brief from our motion to their motion. that is because in the district court with that strict liability crime they didn't rely on anything having to do with that because their position was that is irrelevant as soon as we talked to the owner he said you cannot be here game over
12:04 am
they are liable for trespassing so now they asked the court to enter judgment on a different summary judgment motion than what they filed with the district. >> justice alito asked what else could they have done? what could the police have asked for of mens rea? of mens rea? a number of examples absent here. one is direct evidence where the owner tells the police they knew that they were not supposed to be in the house. there is circumstantial evidence where they force their way into the house trying to get into a house so
12:05 am
there was no forced entry because they have keys. >> but also with qualified immunity question to say in the part of the officer knowingly violated the law so can you explain? >> yes. our position is that they were plainly incompetent to disregard evidence with the partygoers state of mind. they witnessed nothing to put these partygoers on notice that they were not supposed to be here that speaks to a reasonable officer would have believed that they arrested because of that crime and the
12:06 am
facts that were mentioned drugs, prostitution but the point is that that is evident. >> as you say from the objective standard in the district of columbia there are others and all of these cases to say they upheld convictions for trespassing even though the person gave an excuse and they have no reason to know. as a d.c. police officer all these cases say even with the
12:07 am
partygoers get up on the stand to say this is why i thought i had a right to be here. what is a police officer supposed to make? >> actually it is not an unlawful entry statute. >> were the others? >> yes. where somebody enters a residence so there was a sign that said you must register and he did not register to be in a restricted area. but the other is a restricted case because the crime was knowingly entering that paid area but the reasoning was you
12:08 am
walk through the door we can infer from the act itself you knew what you were doing. but in all those cases there is some indication to put the suspect on notice that is the difference we are talking about those inferences that could be drawn but it is very different than a sign outside the building don't come in here unless you register. >> by way of investigation for partygoers? >> and from unlawful entry of the 21 individuals.
12:09 am
>> i thought that i recall from the petitioner's brief from everybody at the party? >> i don't think that is clear about the petitioner say that everyone said they were invited to a bachelor party that says says i talked to a handful of people. >> what they never asked about is evidence to bear on what these individuals knew. have you been there before? how do you know the host? who invited you? >> i thought 19 people could identify. >> that's not accurate. i don't think that was the representation. there were limited depositions from summary judgment.
12:10 am
two depositions the person states who invited them and then they said it was the hostess. the statement is that the officer said i talked to several other individuals but they were not invited by the host. >> does the petition say if the police interviewed everybody at the party? >> i don't recall. >> i do want to talk briefly about the point they are not seeking to justify the arrest there is a reliance from mens rea from one to the other or just want to make sure i touch on that that is a very different case but the court
12:11 am
reasoned one person certainly was involved with narcotics activity and because of that you would it be at a car three in the morning with two others if innocent people i don't think that logic works because the hostess implicated herself making a statement against interest and admitted she was liable for criminal trespass doesn't necessarily follow that she told everybody else that. so to explain she was the reason for the unlawful injury. telling people they were invited and acknowledged i am the one who caused this.
12:12 am
so with 21 friends on a bus one buys cocaine and they said that his mind and now the petitioner say you can still infer the other 20 new about that. >> just to get back to justice alito that you agree to make this arrest in a more affluent part of town but perhaps that furniture situation if it is a new tenant we all live with folding chairs for a period of time when removed. so is that a fair reason? do we distinguish between parts of town to decide when to make an arrest? >> i'm not trying to argue for
12:13 am
us between low income and high income properties but the board says from a common sense perspective. >> this is a new tenant. or from whatever part of town we are from. where does he enforce the law? >> i just say there are several considerations taken into account but you make that concession that would be there are situations where the condition of the home would be enough so the petitioner cites real-world examples and there is a for sale sign up front. obviously they have probable cause with a for sale sign, condition of the house with at least some evidence.
12:14 am
>> it is different because in that case there could be forced entry because they don't have keys. >> i'm saying keep the facts exactly the same just move the house. >> it is a closer case but if police, upon evidence that they implicitly made that they shoul should? >> but to contrary to take into account commonsense consideration but ignore the fact if you are in a low income neighborhood police are on the ground with that commonsense consideration should play a par part.
12:15 am
>> who is the bachelor? the evidence is j193 there is no evidence in summary judgment. so we checked into it and actually what they say is that individuals in the depositions did not talk about the bachelor that is irrelevant. >> they said it was a bachelor party because they made that point. >> we agree that they all said it was a bachelor party. >> i thought you said a birthday party? [laughter] >> that was at trial often are summary judgment the officer changed his story. [laughter]
12:16 am
>> that evidence came in at trial after summary judgment was concluded and that happened on a couple of occasions and we could cross-examine to get the officers to admit their memory was better now than two years ago that with the fact probably added to the damages results. >> the police report says they found marijuana field-tested for thc and they also admit that was false. unless there are any further questions we will submit. >> thank you counsel. you have four minutes remaining mr. kim. >> first just to clear things out. >> i don't know if i agree completely with your opposing counsel that the wealth of the neighborhood should make a difference.
12:17 am
but i suspect that if police officers arrived at a wealthy home and it was white teenagers having a party and one said my dad just bought this house and i told the kids they could have a party, and he told me to come and larry told me to come that they would not be arrested. maybe the kid who lied but i doubt very much those kids would be. so how was this case different? the same set of facts, sparsely furnished, may be a little dirty, lights are on, that sort of thing. so shouldn't we have a rule that if we require mens rea at all that police officers
12:18 am
should be treating people equally? >> absolutely. i take very seriously their obligation to do so. but the claim in this case they took their time and investigated very thoroughly. >> was anybody arrested for trespassing for going to a part party? >> yes because they were responding to a community complaint. the community took this very serious it was abusive of vacant home. >> we know that was not forced entry. >> but going back to question it was a vacant home that nobody was living there. members had reported this was not supposed to have anybody living there that is the type
12:19 am
of home trespassers can target in any socioeconomic status. >> you said you had a few points? >> first they were interviewed and supported by the record on page three and as to whether or not the competing motions at this point it isn't just they didn't raise the disputes but they said this is the factual background look at page number one that the owner had not given permission between pages three and four says here are the fact facts. and we went to trial court and i need to close with a reminder that both questions here need to be considered from the perspective of the on scene officers trying to do
12:20 am
their jobs last night -- that night to put themselves in cells in their shoes if it was reasonable they investigated thoroughly and had much evidence although circumstantial that there was at least negligent trespass given all of that was reasonable they did not have to think there was only one trespasser that night. >> understanding this isn't a legal question depending on your answer but if you are giving counsel to the police department and said in a situation what should we do? that is a very different question from before us but what would be the answer? it is difficult it depends on the circumstances like fourth amendment. >> these circumstances.
12:21 am
>> there are many competing responsibilities. i would not endeavor to answer that question but what we are being asked there are good arguments if it was a bright decision but is it a nationwide floor that they cannot arrest at a situation like this? >> thank you counsel the situation is submitted >> five popular demand it is returning with a coproduction with us in the national constitution center the callers talk about the powers of congress and the constitution, immigration so we have 12 landmark supreme court cases going through the
12:22 am
history of the country to deal with these cases that have something to do with today. we had a long set of cases we wanted to take those that have a human interest story because in the end they affect human beings so it came down to do they have an impact and how relevant are they today? >> so the power of congress to write laws to overrule the states the case in 1886 that anthony kennedy of the supreme court talks about immigration we will have two very good gas -- guest onset and then we will tell the story for each case. and then the chinese
12:23 am
laundromat and the civil rights cases 1875 after the subpoena court ruled- against that it went into effect and then there is an amazing speech one week afterwards that is a little bit on the set but really to talk about how they are relevant today
12:24 am
12:25 am
12:26 am
. [inaudible conversations]


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on