Pearson v. Callahan
Encyclopedia
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223
(2009), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The Court took to the unusual step of asking the parties to argue whether past precedent should be overturned. The theory under that 2001 decision, Saucier v. Katz
, is that without courts first ruling on constitutional questions, the law would go undeveloped in many areas. But many legal commentators have criticized the ruling.
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, to give them a sign indicating a successful drug deal; when he did, they entered the home.
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 argue that "consent once removed" applies, since the informant was acting as an agent of the police.
The criminal charges against Callahan were handled in Utah state court. The judge rejected Callahan's argument that the evidence obtained from the search was unconstitutional, and Callahan accepted a conditional guilty plea while he appealed the constitutionality of the case. A Utah appeals court found in Callahan's favor, overturned the guilty verdict, and declared the search unconstitutional.
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.
The question has divided lower courts, 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 one under which Utah falls into jurisdiction.
However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against the officers' claim of immunity and allowed Callahan to proceed with the lawsuit. 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.
The justices added another issue to the officers' request for cert, that of how to deal with officers' requests for immunity from constitutional issues. This issue was last heard in the highest court in 2001 in Saucier v. Katz
, in which the justices ruled that a certain order had to be prescribed to such suits, first deciding the constitutionality and then deciding if the law had been unclear enough for officers not to be liable. Saucier v. Katz is a widely criticized ruling 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.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2009), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The Court took to the unusual step of asking the parties to argue whether past precedent should be overturned. The theory under that 2001 decision, Saucier v. Katz
Saucier v. Katz
Saucier v. Katz, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.-Background:...
, is that without courts first ruling on constitutional questions, the law would go undeveloped in many areas. But many legal commentators have criticized the ruling.
Background
In 2002, a confidential police informant working with five officers from the Central UtahUtah
Utah is a state in the Western United States. It was the 45th state to join the Union, on January 4, 1896. Approximately 80% of Utah's 2,763,885 people live along the Wasatch Front, centering on Salt Lake City. This leaves vast expanses of the state nearly uninhabited, making the population the...
Narcotics Task Force went undercover at the Fillmore, Utah
Fillmore, Utah
Fillmore is a city in Millard County, Utah, United States. The population was 2,253 at the 2000 census. It is the county seat of Millard County. It is named for the thirteenth US President Millard Fillmore....
mobile home
Mobile home
Mobile homes or static caravans are prefabricated homes built in factories, rather than on site, and then taken to the place where they will be occupied...
of a suspected drug dealer, Afton D. Callahan, to purchase $100 worth of methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine is a psychostimulant of the phenethylamine and amphetamine class of psychoactive drugs...
. The officers had arranged for the informant, who was wired, to give them a sign indicating a successful drug deal; when he did, they entered the home.
The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant
Search warrant
A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found....
requirement of the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
. 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 argue that "consent once removed" applies, since the informant was acting as an agent of the police.
The criminal charges against Callahan were handled in Utah state court. The judge rejected Callahan's argument that the evidence obtained from the search was unconstitutional, and Callahan accepted a conditional guilty plea while he appealed the constitutionality of the case. A Utah appeals court found in Callahan's favor, overturned the guilty verdict, and declared the search unconstitutional.
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
Qualified immunity
Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the...
, a doctrine that states government officials cannot be held liable for violating a facet of the Constitution that is unclear.
The question has divided lower courts, 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 one under which Utah falls into jurisdiction.
However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against the officers' claim of immunity and allowed Callahan to proceed with the lawsuit. 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.
Supreme Court case
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March 2008.The justices added another issue to the officers' request for cert, that of how to deal with officers' requests for immunity from constitutional issues. This issue was last heard in the highest court in 2001 in Saucier v. Katz
Saucier v. Katz
Saucier v. Katz, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.-Background:...
, in which the justices ruled that a certain order had to be prescribed to such suits, first deciding the constitutionality and then deciding if the law had been unclear enough for officers not to be liable. Saucier v. Katz is a widely criticized ruling 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.