MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Supreme Court Considers: Can Cops Arrest You for Going to a Party Where You Don't Know the Host?

The case has already produced some fun SCOTUS banter. It could have major consequences for due process and police accountability.

Jenn Durfey/FlickrJenn Durfey/Flickr"Twenty-one people en masse arrested for trespassing for going to a party. Does that feel right?" asked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a case that sees District of Columbia cops on the hook for false arrest.

Neither Sotomayor nor her SCOTUS colleagues seemed impressed with the city's contention that guests at a 2008 D.C. house party should have known they were trespassing. The guests had been invited there for a bachelor shindig, directly or secondhand, by a woman named Peaches, and they had little reason to suspect she was lying about having recently rented the house.

"You are saying that anytime a policeman goes into a house and there's a party and people tell you, somebody invited me, and it turns out that that somebody didn't have a right to be in the house, you can arrest [the invited guests]?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked the city's attorney during oral arguments last Wednesday.

When invited to a party at someone's home, "I don't ask to look at their lease," said Sotomayor. "I don't ask to—for them to establish, to my satisfaction or anyone else's, their right to be there. I assume if they're there, they can invite me in."

It might seem silly that the Supreme Court is discussing a rogue bachelor party, but the case could have big implications for police accountability. The "Supreme Court should not further expand the doctrine of qualified immunity in the context of the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement," argues the American Civil Liberties Union. That would weaken Americans' ability "to hold government officers accountable for their unconstitutional actions," and would diverge from "the principles undergirding the Framers' intent in drafting the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures." Yale Law School filed a brief supporting the partygoers.

Party at Peaches'

Upon being called to the house by a complaint from neighbors, D.C. police "heard loud music playing inside" and "saw a man look out the window and then run upstairs" when they knocked, according to the city's summary of the case. Police claim the door was ajar and when they entered, there was "a strong odor of marijuana" and women were in their undergarments "with money hanging out [from] their garter belts." Some people were standing around drinking; some were getting lap dances.

Police eventually determined that this was a party thrown by Peaches, who had hired the dancers, invited some guests (who invited guests of their own as well), and recently stepped out to go to the store. But while Peaches was in negotiations with the house's owner to rent the place (and may have even had keys), she had never actually sealed the deal on the lease and did not have permission to throw a party there—all things she admitted to the police when they called her from the party.

Peaches did not implicate her guests in the scheme, and they claim that they didn't know of her deception (or, in some cases, didn't know who lived at the house but had no reason to suspect they were trespassing). Still, all 21 people at the house were arrested for unlawful entry and taken to the police station, where they were detained for several more hours.

All 21 would be booked for disorderly conduct, though those charges were eventually dropped. The group filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the city and the arresting officers, alleging false arrest and violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

A district court sided with the partygoers, finding that D.C. police lacked probable cause to arrest them for unlawful entry. "Nothing about what the police learned at the scene suggests that [partygoers] 'knew or should have known that [they were] entering against the [owner's] will," wrote the court. A jury awarded each responded $35,000 to $50,000, with the city and officers Andre Parker and Anthony Campanale jointly liable for the total $680,000 tab.

The city appealed, and in January the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. At issue in District of Columbia v. Wesby is whether police had probable cause to arrest the partygoers for trespassing and, even if they didn't, whether they are entitled to qualified immunity "because the law was not clearly established in this regard."

Party at Joe's

The mechanics of house-party invites were the subject of ample discussion during last week's oral arguments.

Justice Breyer described his partying days as being back in the "Middle Ages," but said he was aware that people had house parties in which invitations spread though word of mouth and not everyone knew the hosts:

The people today, younger people frequently say, hey, there's a party at Joe's house. And before you know it, 50 people go to Joe's house. And they all—they don't really ask themselves does Joe own the house or rent the house or something. It's Joe's house. But the normal assumption would be it's Joe's house. And nobody questions it. So what's the evidence here that's different from that?

For several rounds of back and forth, D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim, arguing on behalf of the city, continued to assert that it was different because in this case the host didn't have permission to throw a party there, provoking outbursts from Breyer. Kim eventually added that the home was "sparsely furnished," that guests acted suspicious when talking to police, that they may have been smoking pot, and that there were hints of untoward sexual activity, such as (used and unused) condoms in an upstairs room.

"A readily available inference to a reasonable officer was that the partygoers were not blameless dupes tricked into someone else's house, but the simpler explanation, they were trespassing to throw a party with drugs and strippers in a place where they thought they wouldn't be caught," Kim told the court.

The original police report stated that Officer Parker had found and field tested marijuana at the party but Parker later said this was a mistake and no drugs had been found.

Setting Rules for Future Cops

Robert A. Parker, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that "if a person finds himself or herself in a compromising situation—here, finding themselves in a vacant home...where they, as a matter of fact, are an intruder who is committing the actus reus of a crime, and especially if there are surrounding circumstances that would lead a reasonable observer to think that that may be what really is going on, then the deck is stacked against that person."

"So whenever you see a sparsely furnished house with some people in it," responded Breyer, "and they say word got around that Joe invited everybody to his house for a party, it turns out that Joe hadn't rented the house, you can arrest them. Isn't that what you're saying?"

The justices dismissed the sparse furnishings as not at all incriminating for someone who just leased a house, noted that the utilities were all still working, and pointed out that sometimes parties got messy, leading to ever more silly justification from the the city's attorneys.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What—what was that? If all it had, according to you, was a bed and some folding chairs and utilities that worked, nothing had been turned off, what happens during a party?

MR. PARKER: Well—

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Disarray? So what was different in this disarray from a party?

MR. PARKER: Well, the—the evidence in the record indicates that the house was considerably more dirty than just an ordinary house. In fact, one of the individuals who went to the house said that the floor was so dirty, she was unwilling to sit on it.

Justices seemed similarly skeptical of the city's claims that booze, weed, or anything else known about the party should have tipped guests off. "It just is not obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say: Got to get out of here...and it seems a little bit hard that they're subject to arrest," said Justice Elena Kagan, pointing out that "we are setting rules and those rules are going to affect how police officers act in the future as well."

JUSTICE KAGAN: And when looked at from the reasonable partygoer's view, there are these parties that, once long ago, I used to be invited to where you didn't—don't know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties?...I mean, from the partygoers' point of view, they just know that Joe is having a big party, and it's a good time, and—and maybe there will be some liquor and maybe there will be some recreational drugs.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Nathaniel Garrett, challenged the city's claim that the house was self-evidently vacant. "The bed, the chairs, which were not folding chairs...the stereo, the utilities were on. Somebody was paying the utility bills. There were candles. There was food in the refrigerator. There were window coverings. There was shower curtains."

"What is the evidence that these individuals knew that they weren't supposed to be here or at least were negligent in not knowing them?" asked Garrett.

Sotormayor said she suspected "that if police officers arrived at a wealthy home and it was white teenagers having a party, and one of them says, 'My dad just bought this house— and I told the kids they could have a party,'" the teens would be cut some slack. "Those kids wouldn't be arrested. Maybe the kid who lied might be, but I doubt very much those kids would be arrested."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, future arrests could be even more unfair if the Supreme Court sides with the D.C. police. "The Framers of the Fourth Amendment envisioned broad monetary liability for officers who committed unconstitutional acts," the group reminded the court. "Given the intensely fact-specific nature of the probable cause inquiry, and the limitless factual contexts in which arrests are made, that is a recipe for transforming qualified immunity into close-to-absolute immunity for warrantless searches and seizures."

Photo Credit: Jenn Durfey/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That technique will produce far too much head.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Don't be gossiping about Peaches.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Peaches and the Future Cops. Sounds like an 80's band.

  • Radioactive||

    no mention of Herb?

  • Citizen X - #6||

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Huh?
    Wha?
    Right?

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    Well, who doesn't enjoy getting head at a party?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "A readily available inference to a reasonable officer was that the partygoers were not blameless dupes tricked into someone else's house, but the simpler explanation, they were trespassing to throw a party with drugs and strippers in a place where they thought they wouldn't be caught," Kim told the court.

    Shorter Todd Kim: "I have never been to a party in my life."

  • John||

    It is a deeper issue than that. Were the partygoers dupes? Who knows. The question is whether the government is under any obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not dupes. The government's position here is that if you are found on someone else's land, it is up to you to prove you made a mistake being there. It turns what has always been an element of trespass into an affirmative defense.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes, but also, DC Solicitor General Todd Kim is a huge nerd.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    nerds and geeks still have house parties

    Todd Kim is a dork

  • Citizen X - #6||

    ^nerd

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Isn't this why private land is posted?

  • Agammamon||

    Yes. But that's an affirmative action taken by the property owner specifically to close down the 'I didn't know' affirmative defense.

    Even in this case, however, signs wouldn't be relevant because the trespassers had no reason to suspect that they hadn't been given permission by someone with the authority to give that permission.

  • p3orion||

    "The question is whether the government is under any obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not dupes. The government's position here is that if you are found on someone else's land, it is up to you to prove you made a mistake being there."

    I agree. The jury erred in awarding damages from the city to the "innocent" party-goers on the basis that the police were at fault. If they truly were unaware that their presence was illegal, their beef was with "Peaches," not the police who acted on the basis of the "facts on the ground": that these people were in the house without the consent of the legal owner.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Accurate Todd Kim: I have never been invited to a party in my life.

  • John||

    This another in the long string of examples of how courts are turning what have traditionally been specific intent crimes into strict liability crimes. Reasonable Mistake has always been a valid defense in trespassing cases. The government has to prove that you knew that you were on land that wasn't yours or that you were negligent in not knowing it. In this case, the government is saying that they no longer have to prove negligence or knowledge and that your being there alone is enough. That is bullshit and hopefully, will be struck down.

  • jcw||

    I don't think this is a question of strict liability. This will turn on the question of negligence on the part of the partygoers. The responses from the court seem to state pretty unequivocally that no negligence was present, although what the hell do I know.

    If the court rules on this via the nature of trespassing (strict liability vs. mens rea) I would be very surprised. Also, from this article, it does seem like the Government is arguing the negligence/dangerous activity angle.

  • John||

    If the court rules that the state no longer has to prove negligence in cases where it can't prove knowledge, it has made trespassing a strict liability crime. No, it won't rule on mens rea, but the effect of the decision will be to further erode mens rea. You miss my point.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > Reasonable Mistake has always been a valid defense in trespassing cases. The government has to prove that you knew that you were on land that wasn't yours or that you were negligent in not knowing it.

    Not only that, they have to show that you were asked - in some manner or other, orally or by written warning - to leave. IOW, just because the vacant lot on the corner is owned by someone else, doesn't mean that I am prohibited from cutting across it to save time, absent a NO TRESPASSING sign.

  • leedsphone||

    1000 percent in agreement

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I want to party with Peaches, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and this Joe fella.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Let's play fuck, marry, ......uh.........uh......chill.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    How many sets ar The Future Cops going to play?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The mens rea keg is kicked.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Crusty likes that sort of thing.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Wow, this is a pretty interesting case.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    When is a door not a door? When you are the police.

  • Radioactive||

    then its a jar?

  • colorblindkid||

    At any point did any of the justices talk about Peaches by her name? That would be quite entertaining.

  • Agammamon||

    that they may have been smoking pot, and that there were hints of untoward sexual activity, such as (used and unused) condoms in an upstairs room.

    Look, there was pot there and 'untoward' sexual activity. These people know pot is illegal - therefore, *at a minimum* they should have left immediately. In fact, they should have done their civic duty and called the police to report the illegal drug use. These aren't innocents. If the USSC doesn't support out boys in blue then its exactly this sort of thing that will destroy America.

    Mamma told me not to come.

  • MJBinAL||

    Except, reading the article, it seems that there were actually no drugs (including pot) present.

    Read much?

  • leedsphone||

    People like you are the ones helping to bring america down, you act that because they are cops they shall be believed. Well before they were cops, they where like the rest of us non god like people. If you blindly follow just because of a label in name or status, then you destined to not haveing the slightest clue to where you going or where you will end up.

  • Juice||

    A "reasonable mistake" can only be used to arrest you, not as a defense. Duh. This is America.

  • IceTrey||

    But unlawful entry and trespassing are not the same thing. When it comes to tresspassing you have to be issued a warning and given a chance to leave. Did the cops do that?

  • Tony||

    I thought the position here was that you could shoot a baby for crawling a foot into your lawn.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You thought that because you're an idiot.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I'm sorry, a dishonest, intellectually shallow idiot.

  • Tony||

    I spent a large part of yesterday being lectured that property rights damn near trump every other liberty.

  • Juice||

    Now you're trying to get educated about proportional response?

  • Tony||

    But you could shoot the trespassing baby if you wanted to, right?

  • Juice||

    Technically the baby wouldn't be trespassing, but in any case, of course not. That would not be the proportionate response.

    I'd like you to keep in mind that the only reason I respond to you is in case someone is reading this trying to actually learn about the ideas of liberty. It really has nothing to do with trying to convince you of anything since you're just trolling.

  • Tony||

    It's called the Socratic method.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I like how Tony's comments are a great way to showcase what rotten,dishonest, evil people progressives truly are.

    Thanks Tony. You're a useful idiot for turning people away from progressivism.

  • Tony||

    You're the ones who think it's OK to shoot babies.

  • Finrod||

    Imagine that, Tony is lying about what people think, AGAIN.

  • IceTrey||

    There's no liberty to violate property rights.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    No, but if I think the baby looks like a white supremacist then I can punch the shit out of it, right?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If you got at least five antifa thugs together, they might muster enough guts to try.

  • IceTrey||

    Did you not read my comment directly above? You have to give a warning to trespassers and give them a chance to leave first.

  • Tony||

    And when the baby just sort of wriggles around instead of leaving, then you can shoot it?

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    You're only allowed to shoot it it's trespassing in a woman's uterus. Duh.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I thought the position here was that you could shoot a baby for crawling a foot into your lawn

    No, you can shoot a baby because my body my choice.

  • Johnimo||

    Good point, Diane. You're absolutely correct.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "a strong odor of marijuana" and women were in their undergarments "with money hanging out [from] their garter belts."

    At my house, this is called Wednesday.

  • Johnimo||

    This party wasn't just a party. It was a REAL FUCKING PARTY, DUDE! That Joe! I swear.

  • Malvolio||

    > At "my" house, this is called Wednesday

  • leedsphone||

    I want to cum over for a visit next wednesday

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Based on the blistering responses the judges are giving Parker, I suspect they'll consider the arrests fully constitutional.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I might have missed it in the text, but I think this article only grabbed quotes from Sotomayer, Kagan and Breyer. So that leaves five other justices that may have spoken favorably about the police. And then there's Thomas who never seldom says anything, but he's a pretty reliably pro-cop vote so...

    Point being, Bryer, Sotomayer and Kagan are probably on the side of the duped party-goers. But that's not a majority.

  • Tony||

    I always turn down invitations to parties that don't come directly from the host. I hate feeling like an interloper.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Stolen beer tastes better.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Supreme Court Considers: Can Cops Arrest You for Going to a Party Where You Don't Know the Host?
    The case has already produced some fun SCOTUS banter. It could have major consequences for due process and police accountability.

    Of course the police can arrest you for going to a party where you don't know the host.
    That's why they carry guns and badges, and don't even get me started on the antiquated due process idea.

  • Radioactive||

    cops pissed they weren't invited!

  • Johnimo||

    Can SOMEONE please tell me where Joe's house is? Is there an address? I mean ... to me at least ... it seems like it's a ton of fun over there. Not every night, mind you, rather just an occasion drive by to see what's going on.

  • Longtobefree||

    Joe only holds parties on certain occasions. Fortunately, he considers sundown to be an occasion.

    (tip of the hat to Ed McMahon)

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Note to Todd Kim: back in the day when an attorney was getting ready to go into court s/he would give his or her argument the "straight-face test". If you could look into the mirror and say your piece without making yourself laugh, you were good to go. Sounds like more than time for you to resurrect this time-honored tradition

  • EscherEnigma||

    Maybe he's just a better poker player then you?

  • Malvolio||

    OK, I hate to say this, but this seems like a reasonable application of qualified immunity. The cops aren't (apparently) accused of arresting people maliciously or with some pretext. They thought they had probable cause -- they were wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be sued into bankruptcy.

  • EscherEnigma||

    How so? Per the article, the cops called the host, who told them the situation (no indication that the host lied to the cops over the phone). At that point the cops should have just shut the party down and told everyone to take it elsewhere. Arresting them for trespass was over-the-line.

  • Radioactive||

    there was "a strong odor of marijuana" and women were in their undergarments "with money hanging out [from] their garter belts." Some people were standing around drinking; some were getting lap dances....you shoulda been there, totally bitchn party!!!

  • Inigo Montoya||

    First, I'd accept a party invitation from Peaches regardless of the venue, no questions asked.

    Second, Robert A. Parker is now arguing against going to parties and supporting a total dork like this Solicitor General? Shouldn't he be working on another Spenser for Hire book instead? Sad.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Kim eventually added that the home was "sparsely furnished," that guests acted suspicious when talking to police, that they may have been smoking pot, and that there were hints of untoward sexual activity, such as (used and unused) condoms in an upstairs room.


    MR. PARKER: Well, the—the evidence in the record indicates that the house was considerably more dirty than just an ordinary house. In fact, one of the individuals who went to the house said that the floor was so dirty, she was unwilling to sit on it.


    So Kim and Parker think it's normal to sit on a floor and strange for a man to wear a condom during sex. Where does the city find these cucks?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, cops do have a history of arresting women for having condoms in their purses as proof of prostitution, so...

  • MikeP2||

    "Supreme Court Considers: Can Cops Arrest You for Going to a Party Where You Don't Know the Host?"

    disingenuous title.

    It should be "can cops arrest you for being in a building when you didn't have permission from the owner"

    They were certainly trespassing. Unknowingly, by all evidence, but that isn't the cops job to determine if it was intentional or an honest mistake. The charges were dropped afterall, so what is their complaint? That they got arrested for trespassing?
    Ideally for them, the cops would have kicked them out without arrest, but realistically, shouldn't the property owner expect the cops to haul everyone in for questioning? The property owner is the one who had his private property misused and possibly damaged, and should reasonably expect law enforcement to protect the property and investigate any criminal wrongdoing. It seems a stretch to claim a 4th amendment right to be immune from arrest for clear suspicion of a crime.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is the correct answer. Haul them all in. Discover that the owner had voluntarily given the keys to Peaches. Chalk this up to a contractual dispute and send everyone home.

    Only in bizarro world does this warrant a fat payout to each of the guests.

  • mpercy||

    "Sotormayor said she suspected "that if police officers arrived at a wealthy home and it was white teenagers having a party, and one of them says, 'My dad just bought this house— and I told the kids they could have a party,'" the teens would be cut some slack. "Those kids wouldn't be arrested. Maybe the kid who lied might be, but I doubt very much those kids would be arrested."

    About what I'v come to expect from the wise latina. Throw out the race card at every opportunity.

  • Rich||

    "Just the facts, Ma'am."

  • Radioactive||

    just the facts...SENORITA!!

  • Bubba Jones||

    This case gives me a sad, but for reasons that have not yet been mentioned.

    I assume that this party got out of hand, the cops showed up and then they asked to speak with the host of the party. This seems like a pretty typical response.

    Things get atypical when they contact Peaches and discover that she has perhaps jumped the gun on her lease. She doesn't actually have a rental agreement. Why did she volunteer this information?

    Now this begins to sound suspicious, so they round everyone up and take them downtown where they sort things out.

    A few hours later, everyone goes home and eventually all the charges are dropped.

    Why is this not the end of the story? HOW THE FUCK does this make it to the supreme court? Do we really not have anything better to discuss? What twat of a juror awards $30k+ of tax money to a party goer for being inconvenienced as a consequence of a bizarre scenario? Was anyone actually abused during this interaction?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Why is this not the end of the story? HOW THE FUCK does this make it to the supreme court?


    Because cops can't just arrest folks and let the DA sort it out. They have to have reasonable cause to believe that you committed an arrest-able offense.

    Which is why the questions in the case kept revolving around whether or not it was reasonable to expect the guests knew that they were trespassing, as intent and warning are important components of a trespassing/unlawful entry charge. If the cops on-site had no reason to suspect that guests were aware they were trespassing, then the cops on-site had no basis for the arrests.

    And if they had no basis for the arrests? They the arrest shouldn't have happened, and folks get to sue.

    And that last part, suing over an improper arrest? Is pretty typical when folks have the money to sue over an improper arrest.

  • Bubba Jones||

    They did have a reasonable cause. These people were in fact trespassing.

    If a raging party were being held on my property WITHOUT INVITING ME, I would be pissed and would want everyone thrown in jail.

    The cops certainly didn't commit $30k/person of harm.

  • Finrod||

    What part of "they didn't know they were trespassing" do you not understand?

  • bhees||

    The cops thought they were lying. What part of that don't you understand?

  • leedsphone||

    Question did the legal gardian of this property swear out a tresspassing complaint the night of thd arrests, i am also shoked that the prositution laws wherent added to the arrestees. Again curious who was in this crowd. If the court finds in favor of the cops there is nothing to keep them from arresting a property owner on his or her own property for tresspassing, the justifucation would be they didnt know whom owned said property and the arrests where validated untill legal ownership be established. One traffic stop from incarceration, One paycheck away from being homeless, whom owns the car you are in? Needs to be verified, 72 hours later you are realeased all charges are dropped, in reality you have now lost your job, your boss dont believe your lame story, so your fired, no paycheck no mortgage or rent money, now out on the street , now who is going to hire someone who has no way of showering, cleaning themselves and there clothes and keeping clean odor free, homeless you cant even plug in an alarm clock how are you going to make it to work on time, no now your screwed so you start getting high, to help ease the frustration that your own goverment did this to you. Now every says oh he has mental health probs so now he is homeless bum, but which came first and who is to blame after all the cops where jyst doing there job, so where the guards at tge concertration camps,

  • leedsphone||

    Thought they were lieing, extremely opinoniated on whose lieing and whose not, last time i thought the law was not based on assumptions of pot stealing cops, where did the pot go after it was tested must have tested pretty good, the cops lied in their own hand writting, so the argument that they thought the partyiers where lieing dont hold any water sorry,

  • leedsphone||

    Really you set liberty value pretty low, apparantly you think your freedoms, and liberty is worth what $25.00, more or less, i know lets devalue liberty down to $2,50 then this way when we loose what little bit we still have, it wont be that big of a lose.

  • leedsphone||

    Kinda curious who theses elite partiers are, if this was to occur in my neighborhood, we would have all signed plea bargains 1 year after our arrests, just so we could get out if jail and get on with our lives, if any one of us tried to sue, they would toss it out as frivious, frivilous that we should not be expecting compensation from our own goverments mistakes, after all you were technically tresspassing so we can not reward you for you commiting offenses against the LAW. Who cares what society thinks......

  • leedsphone||

    Really what price do you set your liberty at,?
    i will start a go fund me page to get what libertys value is to you, the we will come to your home, pay you you liberty value, throw you in jail while we verify who actually owns all your property. And i mean all your property, you better have proof of ownership, wouldnt want the extra possesion if stolen property charge as well. So whats your price for your liberties and freedoms, you already said under 30k so i should be able to come and get you soon.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Was anyone actually abused during this interaction?"

    Of course. Do you know what it's like to be "processed" into a jail these days? Or perhaps anal probes are your idea of fun.

  • Rich||

    The original police report stated that Officer Parker had found and field tested marijuana at the party but Parker later said this was a mistake and no drugs had been found.

    "So, were you lying to us then, or are you lying to us now?"

  • Mark22||

    I thought "trespass" required knowing that you are trespassing, hence the requirement to post signs on property.

  • Lester224||

    Exactly. There were no signs saying: "This is not Peaches rental so you are not invited". Break up the party and kick everyone out of the house. There was no reason to arrest anybody (no drugs found at all the article says).

  • Eman||

    I have to admit I was skeptical at first, but the richness of this wise latina's experiences does seem to have led her to a conclusion I don't disagree with.

  • jerryg1018||

    The DC city attorneys were not only scraping the bottom of the barrel, they were scraping the underside of the bottom of the barrel to justify the obviously unconstitutional arrests.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online