Pearson v. Callahan

Last updated
Pearson v. Callahan
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 14, 2008
Decided January 21, 2009
Full case nameCordell Pearson, et al., Petitioners v. Afton Callahan
Docket no. 07-751
Citations555 U.S. 223 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 591
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorDistrict court granted summary judgment to defendants, Callahan v. Millard County, No. 2:04-CV-00952 (D. Utah, May 18, 2006), 2006 WL 1409130; appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part, 494 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 552 U.S. 1279(2008).
SubsequentOn remand, appeals court affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment, 557 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2009).
Holding
Saucier v. Katz 's two-step process is no longer mandatory. Courts using that test may analyze the two steps in whatever order is most appropriate in a particular case.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by unanimous
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Saucier v. Katz (2001)

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity. [1]

Contents

The case centered on the application of mandatory sequencing in determining qualified immunity as set by the 2001 decision, Saucier v. Katz , in which courts were to first ask whether a constitutional right was clearly violated by a government official at the time of the action before evaluating if a law had clearly been broken. The Court took to the unusual step of asking the parties to argue whether past precedent should be overturned. [2] The theory under Saucier is that without courts first ruling on constitutional questions, the law would go undeveloped in many areas. [3] Many legal commentators have criticized the ruling in Saucier. [4]

The Supreme Court, in its opinion, withdrew the mandatory sequencing required under Saucier, giving courts the discretion of asking the constitutional or law question first. While this discretionary approach can free resources of the court, it has led to additional criticism, as it can often favor defendants, particularly in cases involving excessive force and police brutality. [5]

Background

In 2002, a confidential police informant working with five officers from the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force went undercover at the Fillmore, Utah mobile home of a suspected drug dealer, Afton D. Callahan, to purchase $100 worth of methamphetamine. The officers had arranged for the informant, who was "wired" with a listening device, to give them a sign indicating a successful drug deal; when he did, they entered the home. [6]

The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under the doctrine, if a suspect to a crime opens the door for an undercover police officer, the suspect unknowingly is also allowing further police officers to enter without a warrant. In the criminal case at issue in this civil case, the police officers sent an undercover informant in to make a drug deal. When the informant succeeded, the police officers then entered Callahan's home without a warrant. The police in the case argued that "consent once removed" applied, since the informant was acting as an agent of the police. [6]

The criminal charges against Callahan were prosecuted in Utah state court. The judge rejected Callahan's argument that the evidence obtained from the search was not admissible because the search was unconstitutional, and Callahan accepted a conditional guilty plea while he appealed the judgment. A Utah appeals court found the search unconstitutional and overturned the guilty verdict. [6]

Callahan then filed a civil lawsuit against five members of the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force who had conducted the search, claiming they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. If the case was not decided in the officers' favor, they would face the prospect of paying monetary damages to the plaintiff. The officers claimed that they could not be sued due to qualified immunity, a doctrine that states government officials cannot be held liable for violating a facet of the Constitution that is unclear. [6]

The question had divided lower courts, [6] which disagreed about the "consent once removed" doctrine. Federal judge Paul G. Cassell said in 2006 that even if the search was unconstitutional, the police officers could be granted immunity because at the time of the search, it would have been reasonable for them to believe that it was constitutional. He noted that three federal circuits abided by "consent once removed," although not the Tenth, in whose jurisdiction Utah falls. [6]

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled against the officers' claim of immunity and allowed Callahan to proceed with the lawsuit. [7] The court did not adopt "consent once removed" as other federal circuits have done. The appeals court said that a reasonable police officer would have known not to proceed in the case without a warrant. [6]

Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March 2008. [6]

The Court added another issue to the officers' request for certiorari: how to deal with officers' requests for immunity from constitutional issues. This issue was last heard in the Supreme Court in 2001 in Saucier v. Katz , in which the Court ruled that such suits had to be adjudicated in two phases: first, deciding the constitutionality, and then deciding if the law had been unclear enough for officers not to be liable. Saucier v. Katz is widely criticized because it has resulted in judges spending time deciding difficult constitutional issues, even in cases where official immunity obviously applies and the case will eventually be thrown out. One such case that went to the Supreme Court was Morse v. Frederick . [6]

Supreme Court Decision

The Court's decision severely limited Saucier v. Katz 533 U.S. 194 (2001). The Court modified Saucier's two-step inquiry in two ways. First, it eliminated the requirement that qualified immunity issues be considered in order. Thus, courts after Pearson can first consider whether federal law forbidding an action was clearly established at the time of that action, instead of first analyzing the sometimes more difficult question of whether the law actually forbade the action, regardless of its clarity. Second, it made Saucier's two-step process advisory. The Court said: "we conclude that, while the sequence set forth (in Saucier v. Katz) is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory." [1]

Consequences

This case allowed judges to skip the question of whether or not a police officer used excessive force and to focus solely on whether or not the conduct violated clearly established law, which appeal courts have frequently done. [8] Some legal experts assert that this has created a "closed loop" in which "the case law gets frozen" because it largely prevents the introduction of case law that clearly establishes new instances of the use of excessive force. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-fields doctrine</span> N.Z. legal rule allowing warrantless searches of private property not near houses

The open-fields doctrine, in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the search," such a search "must exclude the home and any adjoining land that is within an enclosure or otherwise protected from public scrutiny."

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees. The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights. § 1983 had previously been a relatively obscure and little-used statute, but since Monroe it has become a central part of United States civil rights law.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the Fourth Amendment. It was a criminal case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. The case extended the situations under which search warrants are required as they reversed a robbery conviction made on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the holding.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ending Qualified Immunity Act</span> Proposed United States legislation

The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is a proposed United States Act of Congress first introduced in 2020 by Justin Amash (L-Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) to end qualified immunity in the United States. Qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law, a precedent requiring both that those actions violate written law and that there be a judicial precedent establishing that such actions are unlawful.

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution's "community caretaking" exception.

References

  1. 1 2 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
  2. ↑ Walsh, Mark (2008-10-02). "Justices' Docket Includes Case on Title IX". Education Week.
  3. ↑ Mauro, Tony (2008-03-25). "Saucier Than Usual, the Supreme Court Tackles a Precedent". Legal Times.
  4. ↑ Goldman, Ross B. (2008-05-15). "Defending Saucier". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1133177. SSRN   1133177.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ↑ Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence; Botts, Jackie; Januta, Andrea; Gomez, Guillermo (8 May 2020). "For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection". Reuters.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Greenhouse, Linda (2008-03-25). "Justices to Weigh Search and Consent". The New York Times . Retrieved 2008-12-10.
  7. ↑ Callahan v. Millard County, 494F.3d891 (10th Cir.2007).
  8. 1 2 Chung, Andres; Hurley, Lawrence; Botts, Jackie; Januta, Andrea; Gomez, Guillermo (May 8, 2020). "For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection". Reuters. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.