Pearson v. Callahan

Background

A homeowner sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant he had invited into his trailer. Local narcotics officers, monitoring the sale, entered the home without a warrant after the informant signaled and arrested the homeowner. The homeowner’s state conviction was later vacated, and he sued the officers under federal law saying the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, applying a mandatory two-step rule from Saucier v. Katz and denying qualified immunity.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered two questions: whether lower courts must always follow Saucier’s required two-step sequence, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court held that Saucier’s two-step approach is often useful but should not be mandatory. It explained judges should have discretion to decide which issue to reach first. On the facts here, the Court found the law about the so-called “consent-once-removed” practice was unsettled across lower courts, so the officers could reasonably believe their conduct was lawful. Because the unlawfulness of the entry was not clearly established, the officers are protected by qualified immunity.

Real world impact

Lower courts can now choose whether to decide the constitutional question or the “clearly established” immunity question first, which may reduce unnecessary constitutional rulings. Police officers who relied on conflicting lower-court decisions face less risk of personal damages. Civil plaintiffs may get fewer merits rulings in immunity cases, shifting some disputes to other types of proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

The Supreme Court decision was unanimous. A split Tenth Circuit panel had dissented, arguing the homeowner assumed a risk by inviting the informant and that the officers were not plainly protected by settled law.