we'll hear argument first this morning in case fifteen fourteen eighty five the district of columbia versus west be mr kim mr chief justice and may please the court probable cause as a practical standard and thus it accounts for the practical limitations that officers face when making arrests decisions including their edibility to look directly into the minds of suspects offering innocent explanations for suspicious conduct and so in a case like this one but the and circumstantial evidence of mens rea out that is strong or at least fair arrest is reasonable and hence constitutional and more clearly qualified immunity applies let's turn to the totality of the circumstances and consider them from the they in any way affected and the you meet you making today we do not pursue an argument that probable cause existed for disorderly conduct as to negligence or provision that common all claim fails if there was either probable cause  qualified immunity that's where they stand your honor if i may turn back to that to tell you the circumstances my clients responded to neighbors complaints about and i'm not sure i understood what you just said whether we in the residential community that was supposed to be vacant they found a group of late night partiers none of whom claimed any right over the home the homeowner mr hughes i'm sorry and why they are right someone invites me into what they claim is their home or their place of living isn't that an invitation yes there was a claim of invitation your honor i was referring to the absence of any claim of any property right over the and i don't have a property right when i get invited into someone's home to be sure and i don't ask the book at their lease i don't ask for them to establish to my satisfaction or anyone else's their right to be there as soon as they're there they can in fact be your honor we're not suggesting that there has to be some type of confirmation by any party gast of the invite others write to invite what we're saying instead is from the officers perspective looking at the and the house appeared vacant it confirmed to the neighbors chap that it was supposed to be vacant it was the sensually on first and disarray and this is a quote from the arrest report e g a one twelve and disarray in a manner consistent with it being  house it looked like it was being used just for the party like no one was living there this is the type of vacant home that trespassers target just to make sure i understand mr kim that the tip was a neighbor saying that home is supposed to be vacant and yet there's a party going on it's not just a neighbor calling and saying there's a very loud party it's disturbing my sleep that it be tipper that the tip are specifically said it's supposed to be vacant is that correct that's correct  honor we do know that more than one we do know from the arrest report that multiple people did complain we don't know if that was before or after the beginning of the investigation but there were at least some calls before the investigation many people said the house is supposed to be baking you know  mattress there are open cups of beer and liquor scattered about and utilities working or not you tell these were working in order to pierce electricity and farming but that's consistent with they're going to continue claim of right by the owner over the home but he was absent from the tres i mean the i am tone perhaps i shouldn't take this into account but compared to the middle ages with which i'm more familiar with the people today younger people frequently say hey there's a party at joe's house and before you know it fifty 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 as jones house that the normal assumption would be joe's house and nobody question the joe has a right to the house ok but here this is different than that because for two reasons your honor first if i take your hypothetical correctly joe had the authority to throw the party so you know but i'm not talking about joe's authority i'm talking about what the party goers think absolutely when they hear there's a party i don't want to repeat myself i'm saying what i would assume is the normal thought in the party goers house is no more than just what i said house that he has some right to so you i want you to tell me what's different about this case absolutely honor what's different about this case are these facts first it was a house that was supposed to be vacant and looked vacant and it was a house where the owner said  the policeman oh yes and maybe peaches you know color joke wasn't joe's house our right that's one thing so i have to ask myself does that a reason for thinking the party goer knew or did anybody think that she had been there if your honor there was evidence that she told officer parker that she had gone to the store the party goers themselves did not say that notably they simply said in response to the question where is peaches she is not here ok i'm trying to get a full answer and i want to have one the house looked vacant too that in fact peaches didn't have a right to be in the house ok anything else i want to have a complete list of the things that make it different ask around her number three peaches was not their number for party goers acted suspiciously in response to the police presence and they fled and head and they acted very suspicious sensible questions like who's the owner who lives here no one answered those questions according to the the deposition this time and i don't think we should discount the fact that peaches proved herself to be quite invasive untrustworthy she repeatedly hung up on the police when they tried to investigate she said if she came back to the scene should be arrested and she eventually admitted trespassing herself given all the circumstances that that's it that's it nothing else there is more your honor i could keep on going the  itself i think can be used here as a basis turn for the necessary mens rea and let's remember it's either knowledge or negligence even assuming the party goers actually relied upon an invitation from peaches and even assuming they actually believe she had the permission to invite them if their actual reliance was negligent that nonetheless was criminal trespass in the district of columbia so the court of appeals here in what i think is an impractical approach one supposed to be a practical standard so that the officers basically had to heighten their understanding of the credibility of of the party goers clearly taishan and peaches supposed corroboration we don't think that's what police officers are required to do on the scene suspects on th scene offer any number of different types of innocent explanations for conduct these will often be false police officers need the leeway this early way weren't any of these party goers arrested for example one of the many officers said he smelled marijuana but as i understand it no drugs were correct they evidence of that no drugs were found that's right you're not marijuana or any other why weren't people who were suspected of engaging in sex arrested why weren't the people say i think around the strippers arrested for those activities if they were really your honor everyone was arrested because the officers believed them they had probable cause to believe that everyone in the house had committed the offense of unlawful entry specific people in the house may have also committed other crimes but they weren't charged with those as far as we know from the record that's right but how many how many people were in the house at the time twenty one of the time  me a little bit about how you think the summary judgment posture of this case does or doesn't matter i mean usually in summary judgment cases we say we need to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and many of these facts you can see it one way or you could see it another way it has one explanation or it has another other nations so how does the summary judgment standard fit with the for reasons i'm happy to discuss the inferences to be drawn from those established facts or for the court and probably to be turned over and as a matter of law the court puts itself in the shoes of the officer and thinks was it reasonable for the officer to arrest because it was inappropriate for the respondents to wait even in their cert papers to raise these disputes and it's inappropriate for them to ask this court to be the first court to parse the record closely to consider these  that because your honor their disputes are waived or forfeited they should have been raised before and especially in the brief in opposition before this court decided in its discretion to grant cert on the two questions presented moreover i would note that even if you took the facts that are undisputed even now and adam with the facts stated directly in the questions presented that would be sufficient to establish probable cause as a matter of law no matter how you would want to take in the light most favorable to the response it wouldn't matter here because again the entrances are for the court and this stop with facts establish probable cause so that they didn't dispute the central facts in their brief in opposition that's actually were laid out in the petition for dispute that it is too late for them to do so so if you actually look at the totality of the circumstances and you allow the officers to use their common sense this court has said that this is a common sensical standard a readily available inference for a reason the officer was not the party go 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 they were in charge  super's subjective reasoning of course it probably causes an object of analysis i see my time is almost up i would like to say one word about qualified immunity i would hope that the debate today and the fact that four judges on the d c circuit thought there was probable cause would be enough to establish that mr parker mr chief justice and may it please the court there are two fundamental errors in the way that the lower courts analyzed the question of probable cause in this case first they took certain important facts out of context viewed them in isolation and engaged in precisely the sort of divide and conquer analysis that this court has said is inappropriate and the second is they concluded that because those facts were susceptible to possible innocent explanations they could not contribute to a finding of probable cause neither of those is correct when police officers encounter a criminal suspect they are required to draw fair inferences from the entire constellation of facts drawing on practical and commonsense experience those facts will rarely be clear and often they will point in different directions and when they do this court has said repeatedly the possibility of competing inferences supports not undermines a finding of probable cause that is especially true in the case of mens rea which is not directly knowable the police officer cam up here into 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 infer what the mental state is certainly police officers should be permitted to do so under the less exacting requirements of 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 second hand invitation to a party or that they cannot go to a party at the home of somebody they don't know or that when they arrive they have to inspect the lease to ensure that the person has authority  invite them all we are saying is that if a person finds himself or herself in a compromising situation here finding themselves in a vacant home that actually is vacant where they as a matter of fact are an intruder who is committing the act this race 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 you are saying that anytime a policeman goes into a house and there's a party and people tell you somebody's invited me and it turns out that that somebody didn't have a right to be in the house can rest no i'm not i'm not saying you not know then what else is there than that oh sorry it's there is one other thing the other thing is that it isn't sparsely furnished so whenever you see a sparsely furnished house with some people in it and they say word got around that joe invited everybody to his house for a party it turns out the joe hadn't rented the house you can arrest him isn't that what you're saying it is not what i'm saying and i go then why isn't it well because there are two answers one is that i think would be precisely the kind of bright line rule that this court has repeatedly said is not to be imposed in probable cause cases what i think instead is required is an analysis of the tally of the circumstances to determine whether the statement of the the claim of an innocent mentals i'm saying what else is there here and i don't see anything else and maybe it's a question of believability then let's have a trial well let let me let me talk about the facts of this case if i could turn to that i think it's useful to think of this almost as like two sides of the ledger on one side there's the condition of the home on the other side there's the statements of the people who were there if you think about the condition of the home the police were responding to a citizen h and and and incriminate i think that that is a perfectly permissible inference from the facts that you describe justice ginsburg i think are only point is it is not the only permissible inference based on the taliban of the facts here in addition to the tip that they received when the officers arrived they noticed that the the condition of the home was entirely consistent with being a vacant house it wasn't just that it was sparsely and some folding chairs and utilities that were nothing had been turned down what happened during a party well disarray so what was different this disarray well 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 there was trashed in and out there were used contraceptives strewn about i think that all of those things would lead a reasonable officer to think that perhaps these are just particularly messy house guests but this is also consistent with the type of party people would throw in a vacant house where they're not too concerned about the state that they leave it in his department you know you're exactly right that of course we have to view this through the eyes of the officer and there is much that an officer could look at here and say i think i have probable cause and certainly when the qualified immunity standard is laid on top of that makes it even easier for the officer i guess one of the things that strikes me is why there is resistance here is that when looked at from the point of view of the reasonable party goer it looks a little bit different tonight i take the point that that's not the standard but we are setting rules and those rules are going to affect how police officers act in the future as well and when looked at from the reasonable party goers view there are these parties that once long ago i used to be invited to where you didn't joan snow the host but you know joe is having a party and can they say that long long ago marijuana was maybe present at those parties and you know also and you know it just is not obvious that the reasonable party goer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say i gotta get out of  here and and seems a little bit hard that they're subject to arrest so so how do i think about that question well i think there are a couple of ways that i think the overarching point here is that as i said when the party goer goes to a house if it turns out that it actually is vacant and that they actually are intrude the police upon encountering that scituate but they don't know that as i said i mean right from the party go is a 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 and they're having a good time that i i think that that's an entirely possible inference to draw but it's not the only inference and i think here there are a number of facts that suggest that that in fact was not what was happening it's not just that the house looked vacant and that people who were reasonably on the scene would would be able to observe that this looks like a situation where we should not be it's that when they were asked about it the individual said nothing to dispell probable cause if anything they reinforced it it wasn't just that none of them lived there none of them knew who lived there they also when asked who invited you almost all of them said somebody else the record doesn't reflect whether they named any particular person but we do know that only two of the individuals on the scene it appears at least named peaches  those were two of the young women who had been hired to come dance at this party they were not the actual party goers themselves when peaches was was called she as mr kim  explained earlier was evasive she lied to the officer she said that she had authority to throw a party there and she didn't all of those things i think would fit into a reasonable officers understanding of the facts and suggest that they may be hearing a story that is not true both from the party goers in from peaches and certainly i think that when police arrive at a scene and see a the actis radius of a crime in the process of being committed they can at least reasonably into it that the people here probably know what they're doing that isn't always going to be able to get you over the probable cause hump because as i've said this is not an area susceptible to those sorts of bright line rules but at least it's going to inform what a prudent officer who is exercising an appropriate level of skepticism when doing it would finish your sentence when dealing with the these sorts of people would think thank you thank you counsel there mr chief justice and may please the court the court should affirm the grand to respond in summary judgment motion respondents uniformly told police they had been invited to a party the host corroborated their statements and the owner of the house confirm the host was not some stranger she had been involved in least negotiations that ultimately fell through petitioners now maintain that there was probable cause to arrest because the party was rockets and involved stripping and drinking and marijuana smoke but those activities don't put a party goer on notice that the host had well there was a lot more involved so the petitioner is relying on those things that you just listed he went through six different items that weren't limited to the fact that it was a raucous party so there was also the fact that peaches was absent justice ginsburg you are correct that peaches was at the party that's undisputed a j a forty three then they arrive and she has left does a party goer who arrives at a party where the host is there and then she leaves no he should not be there after she was there when he arrived they also mentioned disarray and the and the status of the home i think in fact the status of the home is generally undisputed in terms of what was there and many things were left out so let me explain them the bed the chairs which were not folding chairs you can see that from the pictures in the record 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 so they say it was vacant but it's certainly not vacant under the definition of d c law d c law defines vacant it certainly wasn't vacant so they must mean well when the people  condition of the house was such they should have realized they're not supposed to because it doesn't matter that the tips they had said that it was vacant well the tip i think the tip is hard to sort of decipher we've got the police report at one twelve where there are two tips there's names cack and foster and we don't know who exactly said what because it doesn't distinguish between them three pieces of information given vacant illegal activity loud music oddly mr cat comes in at summary judgment and affidavit that seems quite different from that he actually says they used to be vacant about a month ago i started seeing people using the house thing i suppose would be what the op officers were told and what it was reasonable for them to act on with that and they certainly was reasonable for them to actually justice roberts we don't dispute and this is what the petitioners maintain in the district court certainly that point when the tip comes in they have suspicion they can go to the house investigate what's going on which they did the question is then what develops into probable cause for unlawful entry and most importantly what is the evidence that these individuals knew that they weren't supposed to be here or at least were negligent in not knowing which of the officers had gone after th had made all their inquiries and i think there are several things they could have done here justice alito number one they now had information from the owner that he didn't want them there they immediately could have asked the individuals or ordered in visuals to leave and if they hadn't that's unlawful entry they could arrest they could have issued a citation for disorderly conduct which likely would not have raised fourth amendment concerns at all they could have investigated as they now maintain they smell marijuana smoke there's a suggestion that one officer heard about prostitution well they certainly could have investigated those crimes i think it's interesting or at least telling that under devon pak they could have come in here at any time and say we arrested for unlawful entry but really we had probable cause for other things whether it's this or really conduct marijuana  prostitution they've abandoned the disorderly conduct justification and they've never suggested they had probable cause to arrest anybody for the other crimes and i think the key things that are fully taken in one you're put yourself in the position of the officer two people tell you this is a vacant house some of it is known even a new i guess is some evidence of this that there were vacant houses in this area used for parties they know also that it is a vacant house and doesn't and those are the things that and then they look around and it looks sort of they couldn't not completely but sort of and so that together leads them to think well these people knew it was a vacant house but and would a reasonable officer have concluded that the party goers knew or they knew it was a vac your honor in fact of a how to well if the house is actually i mean this is the oddity of how this argument comes up of a house is actually vacant or abandoned it's not trespassing because somebody is not maintaining their control over it it's it i of trespass if somebody is in a vacant house that is boarded up or otherwise secured in a manner that conveys it's not to be entered i think one fact that was not talked about here is that there was no evidence of boarding up and there's no evidence of for temps when the people nearby called it in they said the houses vacant you think they were referring to the technicalities of district of columbia log don't you think they know that nobody was living there that's correct your honor i do think that's right and then the question arises these party goers did they have a reason or did they know that it was supposed to be vacant now that host had told both she told the party goers she had just moved in the part of the police actually knew this because peaches told sergeant suber the owner supposed to be fixing the house up for me we've also are obviously in a low income neighborhood so our point on the on the status of the home is that a party goer going to the home would not infer simply because of its condition there must be something wrong with the whole well the fact that what you just mentioned this troubling to me you say it's 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 in as you know our neighbor joe who is the c e o of this and that company has been an officer in a big company has been transferred to another city and has moved out and the house is occupied would you be making the same argument well it depends on what the party looks like it  certainly looks exactly like this party but then i think the police need to invest now i think the police and if the house is complete actually exactly the same except the party is in potomac well i think it would be a closer case why not be a closer case because the expectation while this is a low income neighborhood we don't care what goes on here quite the opposite that the point is that the we're looking at this from a police officer's common sense perspective and certainly it seems like common sense that i didn't know this in fact the house under d c law wasn't vacant no your honor and indeed if the officers which is unlikely had known all these details they would have known it's not vacant what it is is not owned by or granted by the person who supposedly invited them to the party correct so then the question becomes did would a reasonable officer have believed that they were trespassing and they were trespassing if and only if there is some reason a reasonable person could have believed that they knew that the person who invited them first second or third hand did not have a right to be there correct and it is you think there's nothing to have a trial about oh i thought so let me let me maybe use that question as a transition to justice kagan's question about the differing standards of reviewing the different motions so both parties filed motions for summary judgment and and i want to also make sure i talk about the waiver issue so if if the court is reviewing our motion and asking whether to reverse that motion the facts are construed in districts favor if the court is reviewing should have direct entry of judgment for petitioners then you would construe the facts in our favor  there was some discussion of will have we waived this distinction and let me explain why that's not the case in their petition the petitioners asked for reversal of liability findings and pages sixteen and twenty five and they construed the facts in their favor it wasn't until their merits brief that they very clearly said not only should you reverse their motion you should grant ours they also say well you never disputed some of these facts below well i encourage the court to look at j one eighty six which is their fifty six point one statement in support of summary judgment they never mention five of the seven facts they rely on here but they did mention them in their petition and our rule rule fifteen makes it perfectly clear if you do not challenge the factual searched assertions in the petition you are bound by those assertions the reason is that we make a judgment about whether to take a case based on the search papers and we take the facts as set forth in the petition if not challenged in the brief in opposition and i went through and read your brief in opposition again and you did not challenge in fact you conceded most of the pertinent facts to which mr kim is rely because we can't challenge them when reviewing our motion for summary judgment if none of these are historical facts that they assert it doesn't matter the motion this the motion that they sent the different things the police received a phone tip peaches recanted her claim and in many of those you agreed and you repeated their assertions  you didn't challenge them again i'm not sure i have much to add other than if the question is whether we're reviewing our motion we do take those facts is true but they clearly petitioners clearly know how to say we want a directed judgment in our favor and they didn't ask for it in the petition and my point is simply i think it ought to be at least an ambiguous if they're going to change relief in their merits brief they ought to have made that clear at the petition stage because there are two different motions and you don't necessarily enter a summary judgment rebut and and we don't dispute those facts in the context of our motion and i would also note the cases they're relying on are cases where the facts end up moving the waiver cases or end up moving the legal question we're not asking to move any legal question the point is they've now extended in their merits brief the scope of this case from our motion to their motion and so we're responding to that and as i was saying earlier the reason these facts were disputed below is because in the district court petitioners theory was that this was a summary a strict liability crime and so they didn't rely on anything having to do with facts that would have put respondents on notice because their position was that's irrelevant as soon as we talk to the owner and he says you're not allowed to be here game over they're liable for trespass so it's now that they're actually asking the court to enter judgment on a different summary judgment motion then they won they actually filed in the district court one might ask what other evidence they could have looked for one of justice alito asked what else could they have done one might also ask what else could be police have looked for as evidence of mens rea and i think looking at the cases cited in this case you see a number of examples that were absent here one is direct evidence which you see in several cases like kozlowski where the owner tells police these individuals knew they weren't supposed to be in the house they don't have that the circumstantial evidence like forced entry where somebody has to force their way into the house because it's not theirs and they're trying to get into a house here of course the evidence as it turned out is that the host had keys and so there was no part of the officer he knowingly violated the law or was plainly incompetent so can you explain how you crossed that  yes justice ginsburg our position is that these officers were plainly incompetent in disregarding evidence of the party goers state of mind it's not a subjective standard nonetheless multiple officers testified they witnessed nothing that would have put these party goers on notice that they were supposed to be here which i think speaks to what an objective lee reasonable officer would have believed of course they arrested because they believe there was a strict liability crime in our contention is that the an objective standard and there are all these cases in the district of columbia tillman is the one that gets the most emphasis in the briefs but there are others right there is this artist smith mcluhan boom in and all of cases which are d c court cases say they have held convictions the up held convictions for trespass even though the person gave some excuse about how they didn't know or they didn't and they and they shouldn't they had no reason to know that they were there and i'm i'm just wondering you're a d c police officer and there are all these cases that say you know we're on our post convictions even though people make the party goers here have to get up on the stand and say this is why i thought i had a right to be here and you know what does a police officer supposed to make of all that law well i think what they make of a residence where the will of the owner has been expressed you don't have to accept a suspects explanation in artie's there was a sign saying you must register he didn't register in mcgloin he was in an obviously restricted area tilman i think is a different case because that is a case where the crime was knowingly entering the paid area of a metro station and the reasoning was you walk past the tails you walk through a door we can infer from the act itself that you knew what what you were doing but again the difference i think is in all those cases there is a sign that there is some indication that puts these these suspects on notice i'm not supposed to be here and that i think is is is sort of the the difference in this case where obviously arguing about what were the inferences they could have drawn from things like stripping and marijuana but it's certainly very different than a sign outside a building saying don't come in here unless you register do not understand to suggest that the officer should have done more by way of investigation before arresting the party goers well i was asked what else could they have done if they wanted to a rest for other crimes they  certainly should if they wanted to arrest for unlawful entry yes i think if you're going to conduct a massive arrest of twenty one individuals you require some individual eyes suspicion so i mean i thought i called from the petitioners brief that the police interviewed every one of the people at the party well i don't think that's clear petitioners say in their summary judgment papers that everyone said they were invited to a bachelor party so i suppose you could further from that they talk to everybody but  the summary judgment record actually shows a specific officer saying i talked to a handful of people how many officers were there ten to fifteen what they certainly never asked about your honor was evidence that might bear on what these individuals knew have you ever been to this house before how do you know the host who invited you and reading i thought the record established well mr kim represented that over the twenty one thousand people could not identify the that's not accurate your honor and i don't but i to be fair i don't think that was the representation i think the representation was that we have limited depositions that were used as summary judgment there are two depositions where the person states who invited them and in both cases they stated was the hostess now there's this is the statement is is in the fifty six point one or that officer comp analysis i talked to several other individuals this is j one thirty five i talked to several under other individuals and they were not invited by the host does i don't recall does the petition so you anything about whether the police interviewed everyone at the party i don't recall  sorry i do want to talk just briefly about the imputation point again they're not pictures aren't seeking to justify the arrest of twenty one individuals on the basis of individual i suspicion pringle there were three individuals in a car and three in the morning and the court reasoned that one person was certainly involved in narcotics activity and because of that that the officers could have for everybody was because you wouldn't be in a car at three in the morning with two others two other innocent people i don't think that logic works here simply because the host this implicated herself made a statement against interest and essentially admitted she was liable for criminal trespass doesn't necessarily follow that she told everybody else that and i think that singling out is also the difference between pringle that peaches essentially explained that she was the reason for the unlawful entry she had told people that they were invited she knew cording to petitioners that she hadn't concluded the lease yet she essentially acknowledged the one who caused this so i think if there is an would be twenty one friends on a bus the police find cocaine and one of them says that's actually mine and petitioners are now saying well you can still infer that the other twenty knew about it  m i just wanted to get back to justice league as question as i understood it you would agree that would be acceptable for an officer to make this arrest in a more affluent part of town and maybe i'm mistaken in that but because perhaps the furniture situation one should understand would be less of this area tom than that area of town but if it's a new tenant we all live with folding chairs for a period of time when we move not hold is that a fair reason and should officers really have to distinguish between parts of town and in deciding when to make an arrest i'm sorry if i misspoke just as course i'm not trying to argue for some sort of bright line r between low income and high income properties i'm saying the court has repeatedly said you look at this from a commonsense perspective and so common sense perspective is that it's a new tenant i agree and so the new tenant we all live with boxes and it whatever part of town we're from so to sort of an officer should an officer i mean redlined where he enforces the law no no no your honor all i'm saying is there are several considerations that could be take into account in the condition of a property i think if i was going to make a concession the concession would be there are certainly situations where the condition of the home will be enough so petitioner cite examples real world examples where there is a big mansion it's empty being sold and there's a for sale sign out front now when the police show up to a teenage party they obviously have probable cause to arrest the back because the for sale sign the condition of the house gives you at least some evidence to take over the for sale side we don't have that here that's a fact we have but otherwise pretty much the same right but you say it's ok to rest at the mansion oh i think it's like that again i think it's different because in that case there may likely be forced entry into the home because they don't have keys to them you keep getting facts i'm saying keep the facts exactly the same just move the house i'm saying it's a closer case but if there is some if the police come upon evidence and i worry that you think it's a closer case that officers implicitly may distinguish than you suggest should be somewhere in town there in force in the i think i think the contrary will be very odd i think would be very odd for police to take into account certain commonsense considerations sometimes but ignore the fact that this woman has said she's just moved in or you're in a low income neighborhood and disregard that i think police are on the ground they know their neighborhoods and that kind of common sense consideration should should play into account just out of curiosity who was the bachelor at this  party it's not clear but i'm glad you asked justice alito because the evidence on that is a j one ninety three and there's no evidence in the in the summary judgment record on it's a lawyer statement we objected to it and what they actually say if you read it closely is that individuals in their depositions were talking about not knowing who the bachelor was but of course that is irrelevant what matters is what the officers learned on the scene to keep raising the point but did you challenge the assertion ginsburg that evidence came in at trial after the summary judgment was concluded and in fact that happened on a couple of occasions where officers changed their story and we were able to cross examine them about it and get the officers to effectively admit their memory was better now than two years ago and i think that combined with the fact that the police report had a falsity and it probably added to that the damages result here oh the police report states that officer parker found marijuana and field tested for t h c and officer parker knowledge that was false with your opposing counsel that the wealth of the neighborhood should make a difference but i suspect 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 that it would be very high and i told the kids they could have  chilled told me to come in larry king told me to come in x king cole told me to come that those kids wouldn't be arrested maybe the kid who lied might be but i doubt very much those kids would be arrested while you're  this case different same set of facts sparsely furnished even a little bit dirty the lights are on that sort of thing so shouldn't we have a rule that if we're going to require mens rea here at all the police officers should be treating people equally absolutely place officers should treat people equally my clients take very seriously the obligation to do so and there is no selective enforcement claim in this case and with good reason the officers took their time here investigated very thoroughly twenty one people in mass arrests the for trespassing for going to a home and the sense that no one was living there not in any technical just for clause of columbia law sense neighbors had reported this house wasn't supposed to have anybody living there and that's the type of home the trespassers can target and houses and any socioeconomic status mr kim you've got to consider you have a few points would you want to run through the stronger first just clean up the fact that everyone was interviewed was in our petition on page three and supported by the record and multiple spots including page one thirty one the appendix as to whether or not this the question of competing motion for summary judgment is probably for the court this point it's not just that they didn't raise the disputes they are firmly said in their brief in opposition this is the factual background and if you look again at page one of the in opposition they agree as to the essential factor that the owner had not given permission there was also a waiver in the court of appeals below page three to four of their briefs in the circuit says here are the essential undisputed facts and quotes the trial court about that and finally i just need to close with a reminder both questions both questions here need to be considered from the perspective of the on scene officers who are trying to do their jobs that night we put ourselves in their shoes and ask whether what they did was reasonable or at least arguably reasonable they investigated thoroughly they had much evidence circumstantial but much evidence as to either knowing or at least negligent trespass given all that what they did was reasonable or at least arguably so they did not have to think that peaches was the only trespasser that night mr pm realizing that this is not the legal question before us i'm just curious as to what your answer is if you were giving counsel to the police department and they said in a situation like this what should we do a very different question from the legal question before us but what would be competing responsibilities i am not an expert in that i would not i would not endeavor especially in this forum to to answer that question but again what we're being asked here is not whether what the officers did was was the right decision there are good arguments why it a question is whether we're going to set a nationwide floor that officers may not arrest in circumstances like these thank you counsel the case is submitted