Document: 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009) Cordell PEARSON, et al., Petitioners, v. Afton CALLAHAN. No. 07-751. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 14, 2008. Decided January 21, 2009. *812 Peter Stirba, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioners, by Malcolm L. Stewart States as amicus curiae, special leave Court, supporting petitioners. Theodore P. Metzler, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. Counsel Record, Meb W. Anderson, Stirba & Associates, Orin Kerr, DC, James K. Slavens, Fillmore, Robert A. Long, Covington Burling LLP, Respondent. *813 Justice ALITO delivered the opinion Court. This is an action brought respondent under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983, against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search his house incident to arrest sale methamphetamine undercover informant whom he had voluntarily admitted premises. The Appeals held that petitioners were not entitled summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Following procedure we mandated in Saucier Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 2151, 150 Ed. 2d 272 (2001), held, first, adduced facts sufficient make out violation Fourth Amendment and, second, unconstitutionality officers' conduct was clearly established. In granting review, required parties address additional question whether mandatory set should be retained. We now hold regarded inflexible requirement and are ground it established at time their unconstitutional. therefore reverse. I A Central Utah Narcotics Task Force charged with investigating illegal drug use sales. 2002, Brian Bartholomew, became task force after having been unlawful possession methamphetamine, informed Officer Jeffrey Whatcott Callahan arranged sell Bartholomew later day. That evening, arrived respondent's residence about 8 p.m. Once there, went inside confirmed available sale. then told needed obtain money purchase left. met members 9 them would able buy gram $100. After concluding capable completing planned purchase, searched him, determined no controlled substances person, gave him marked $100 bill concealed electronic transmitter monitor conversations, agreed signal give purchase. drove trailer home, daughter let inside. Respondent retrieved large bag containing from freezer sold which put into small plastic bag. monitoring conversation, they entered through porch door. enclosed porch, encountered respondent, two other persons, saw drop bag, contained methamphetamine. protective sweep addition recovered found syringes residence. *814 As result, distribution B trial court supported exigent circumstances. On appeal conviction, attorney general conceded absence circumstances, but urged inevitable discovery doctrine justified introduction fruits search. disagreed vacated conviction. See State Callahan, 2004 UT App. 164, 93 P.3d 103. this damages 1983 District alleging violated entering home without warrant. Millard Cty., 2:04-CV-00952, 2006 WL 1409130 (2006). motion judgment, noted courts adopted "consent-once-removed" doctrine, permits entry police when consent enter has already granted officer or observed contraband plain view. Believing tension our intervening decision Georgia Randolph, 547 103, 126 1515, 164 208 (2006), concluded "the simplest approach assume will ultimately reject [consent-once-removed] find searches such one case reasonable Amendment." 1409130, *8. because could reasonably have believed consent-once-removed authorized conduct. appeal, divided panel Tenth Circuit petitioners' rights. 494 F.3d 891, 895-899 (2007). majority stated "[t]he `consent-once-removed' applies enters express invitation someone authority consent, establishes probable cause search, immediately summons assistance." Id., 896. took issue application initial officer, decisions "broade[n] grant informants same capabilities officers." Ibid. further right recognized arrest. 898-899. "In case," stated, relevant free one's unreasonable arrests." 898. that, precedents Circuit, "warrantless entries per se unless satisfy exceptions." panel's words, allow only exceptions warrant circumstances." 899. Against backdrop, concluded, lawful "knew (1) warrant; (2) [respondent] consented entry; (3) [respondent's] *815 interpreted extend them." dissent, Judge Kelly argued "no constitutional occurred case" because, inviting participating narcotics transaction compromised privacy assumed risk reveal dealings police. 903. even if unlawful, nevertheless issue"the effectuate voluntary, consensual confidential undertaken criminal activity giving rise cause"was "clearly established" events question. 903-904. noted, followed procedure. criticized Members lower judges, apply great variety cases thus much firsthand experience bearing its advantages disadvantages. Accordingly, certiorari, directed overruled. 552 ___, 128 1702, 170 512 (2008). II protects government officials "from liability civil insofar does violate statutory rights person known." Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 73 396 (1982). Qualified balances important intereststhe need public accountable exercise power irresponsibly shield harassment, distraction, perform duties reasonably. protection regardless official's error "a mistake law, fact, based mixed questions fact." Groh Ramirez, 540 551, 567, 124 1284, 157 1068 (2004) (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (citing Butz Economou, 438 478, 507, 98 2894, 57 895 (1978) (noting covers "mere mistakes fact law")). Because "an suit rather than mere defense ... effectively lost erroneously permitted go trial." Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 526, 105 2806, 86 411 (1985) (emphasis deleted). Indeed, made clear "driving force" behind creation desire ensure "`insubstantial claims' [will] resolved prior discovery." Anderson Creighton, 483 635, 640, n. 2, 107 3034, 97 523 (1987). "we repeatedly stressed importance resolving earliest possible stage litigation." Hunter Bryant, 502 224, 227, 112 534, 116 589 (1991) (per curiam). Saucier, two-step sequence officials' claims. First, must *816 decide plaintiff alleged (see Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) shown 50, 56) right. U.S., 201, 2151. Second, satisfied first step, defendant's misconduct. applicable supra, 3034. Our better raised determine deprivation all." County Sacramento Lewis, 833, 841, 5, 118 1708, 140 1043 (1998). suggestion mandate. For time, show officer's right... inquiry" every case. 2151 added). Only said, may turn next, sequential step," namely, "whether established." procedure, reasoned, necessary support Constitution's "elaboration prevent stagnation. "The might deprived explanation simply skip ahead circumstances case." considering modified abandoned, begin stare decisis. Stare decisis "promotes evenhanded, predictable, consistent development legal principles, fosters reliance judicial decisions, contributes actual perceived integrity process." Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 827, 111 2597, 115 720 (1991). Although "[w]e reconsideration [our] utmost caution," "[s]tare inexorable command." Oil Co. Khan, 522 3, 20, 275, 139 199 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Revisiting precedent particularly appropriate where, here, departure upset expectations, consists judge-made rule recently improve operation courts, pointed up precedent's shortcomings. "Considerations favor acme involving property contract rights, where interests involved; opposite true procedural evidentiary rules" do produce reliance. Payne, 828, 2597 (citations Like rules governing procedures admission evidence Saucier's protocol affect way order affairs. Withdrawing categorical settled expectations anyone's part. Gaudin, 515 506, 521, 2310, 132 444 (1995). Nor matter implicate presumption legislative changes left Congress." 275. recognize "considerations weigh heavily area construction, Congress *817 change Court's interpretation legislation." Illinois Brick Illinois, 431 720, 736, 2061, 52 707 (1977). But judge implicates internal Judicial Branch operations. Any come Congress. argues reconsidered conclude justification "badly reasoned" proved "unworkable," see those standards, challenged, place present context. basis nature protocol, considerable body new consider regarding consequences requiring adherence supports determination mandatory, all claims Lower applying regular past eight years, reticent criticism "rigid battle." See, e.g., Purtell Mason, 527 615, 622 (C.A.7 2008) ("This `rigid battle' practical, procedural, substantive grounds"); Leval, Judging Under Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1249, 1275, 1277 (2006) (referring framework mischievous rule" amounts puzzling misadventure dictum"). And always enthusiastic. Higazy Templeton, 505 161, 179, 19 (C.A.2 2007) ("We reach [plaintiff's] Sixth violated, principles restraint caution us avoid reaching unnecessary disposition case"); Cherrington Skeeter, 344 631, 640 (C.A.6 2003) ("[I]t individual Defendants did heed command any event"); Pearson Ramos, 237 881, 884 2001) ("Whether [the Saucier] absolute doubted"). also voiced rule. Morse Frederick, 551 127 2618, 2642, 168 290 (2007) (BREYER, concurring part dissenting part) ("I end failed experiment now"); Bunting Mellen, 541 1019, 1750, 158 636 (STEVENS, joined GINSBURG BREYER, JJ., respecting denial certiorari) (criticizing "unwise before addressing defendant actor immunity"); 1025, 1750 (SCALIA, Rehnquist, C.J., either determinations insulated review else pretense ordering original)); Brosseau Haugen, 543 201-202, 125 596, 160 583 SCALIA GINSBURG, concurring) (urging reconsider `order battle,'" "requires unnecessarily difficult there easier *818 (e.g., immunity) satisfactorily resolve court"); 210, (GINSBURG, judgment) ("The two-part test today's imposes holds potential confuse"). Where "been questioned [has] defied courts," these factors reconsideration. 829-830, 2597; Crawford 36, 60, 1354, 177 (2004). Collectively, reevaluation appropriate. III reconsidering while forth often appropriate, longer mandatory. judges district appeals sound discretion deciding prongs analysis addressed light particular hand. cases, continue beneficial. thing, little conservation resources beginning ending discussion prong. "[I]t precisely what happens be." Lyons Xenia, 417 565, 581 2005) (Sutton, concurring). some why apparent all. addition, certainly correct noting promotes especially valuable respect frequently arise unavailable. At however, rigid comes price. sometimes results substantial expenditure scarce effect outcome There far obvious heavy caseloads understandably unenthusiastic seem essentially academic exercise. Unnecessary litigation issues wastes parties' resources. liability." Mitchell, 2806 "disserve[s] purpose immunity" "forces endure burdens suitsuch costs litigating delays attributable themwhen otherwise disposed more readily." Brief Nat. Assn. Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae 30. *819 prong intended precedent, opinions following fail meaningful contribution development. so fact-bound provides guidance future cases. Scott Harris, 550 372, 388, 1769, 167 686 (counseling "so dependent result confusion clarity"); Buchanan Maine, 469 158, (C.A.1 2006) think elaboration well served inquiry involves reasonableness highly idiosyncratic facts"). underlying Bivens Six Unknown Agents, 403 91 1999, 29 619 (1971),[1] scant value appears soon decided higher court. When presented just Ninth elected "bypass step right] Motley Parks, 432 1072, 1078, 5 (2005) (en banc). Similar considerations play confronts pending en banc encounters appeals. resting uncertain doubtful precedential importance. several identified "exception" resolution requires clarification ambiguous statute. Egolf Witmer, 526 104, 109-111 (C.A.3 2008); accord, Tremblay McClellan, 350 195, 200 2003); Ehrlich Glastonbury, 348 48, 57-60 2003). Justifying resolving, prong, Constitution, "underlying principle" encouraging federal unclear clarify "is meaningfully advanced definition depends court's assumptions law." Egolf, 110; Tremblay, 200; Ehrlich, 58. asserted pleading stage, precise factual plaintiff's claim hard identify. Lyons, 582 concurring); Kwai Fun Wong States, 373 952, 957 (C.A.9 2004); Mollica Volker, 229 366, 374 2000). uncomfortable answer [to] depend kaleidoscope yet fully developed" suggested "[i]t strictly cover" situation. Dirrane Brookline Police *820 Dept., 315 65, 69-70 2002); Robinette Jones, 476 585, 592, (C.A.8 (declining follow provided very few define limit holding" question). create bad decisionmaking. encounter briefing woefully inadequate. F.3d, "risk prematurely incorrectly presented"); Mollica, 374. prescribes discussed opinion, notand obviously cannotspecify conclusions own thought processes. Thus, quickly easily turning situations, devote care issue. Horne Coughlin, 191 244, 247 (C.A2 1999) ("Judges being insufficiently thoughtful cautious uttering pronouncements role adjudication"); Leval 1278-1279. Rigid affected appellate serious prospective committed established, face winning party, adverse holding contested. Bunting, perception unreviewability undermines sequencing created" Saucier);[2] Kalka Hawk, 215 90, 96, (C.A.D.C.2000) "[n]ormally, party favorable judgment" "has apparently never certiorari petition prevailed court"). like "prevailing" faces unenviable choice: "compl[y] advisory dictum opportunity seek [or certiorari] review," "def[y] views court, adher[e] practices declared illegal, invit[e] suits" "punitive damages." Horne, 247-248. *821 Adherence departs avoidance runs counter "older, wiser counsel `not pass constitutionality adjudication unavoidable.'" Scott, 1769 (quoting Spector Motor Service, Inc. McLaughlin, 323 101, 105, 65 152, 89 101 (1944)); Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 56 466, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, upon although properly record, of"). analogous contexts, appropriately declined mandate follow. example, Strickland 466 668, 104 2052, 674 (1984), determining denied effective assistance counsel: demonstrate counsel's performance fell below expected competent practitioner; prejudiced substandard performance. 687, 2052. setting analytical evaluating ineffective counsel, decision. 697, 2052 ("Although component ineffectiveness prejudice component, reason both components makes insufficient showing one"). Leon, 468 897, 3405, 82 677 created exception exclusionary rely facially valid 913, 3405. context, challenging lose either: issued cause; not, executing was. Again, good-faith requirement, 924, 925, 3405 ("There adopt practice manifested objective good faith violated"). flexibility reflects bear brunt adjudicating often, always, advantageous, best position decisionmaking facilitate fair efficient each C misgivings concerning withdraw unwarranted. procedure; recognizes worthwhile Moreover, means entirely *822 immunity. Most actions available, municipality, individuals injunctive relief sought instead damages. 1708 unavailable "in enjoin conduct, suppression motion"). relaxation likely proliferation local governments. Compare Counties Amici 29, 30 ("[T]o extent permitting bypass merits plaintiffs pursue novel claims, greater press custom, policy, [damages] governments"). It how significant municipal employee municipality. Whether discretionary, presumably take account possibility immunity, municipality benefits doing (any increase likelihood recovery collection damages) outweigh costs. allowing spawn cottage industry over standards given al. appear "cottage industry" developed today result. IV Turning law. An conducting Amendment. 641, turns "objective action, assessed taken." Wilson Layne, 603, 614, 119 1692, 143 818 (1999) omitted); Hope Pelzer, 536 730, 739, 122 2508, 153 666 (2002) ("[Q]ualified operates subjected suit, notice unlawful" omitted)). here gained acceptance courts. considered three Federal Courts starting early 1980's. Diaz, 814 F.2d 454, 459 (CA7), cert. denied, 484 857, 108 166, 120 (1987); Bramble, 103 1475 (C.A9 1996); Pollard, 643, 648-649 (CA6), 531 999, 498, 148 (2000); *823 Henry, 133 N.J. 627 A.2d (1993); Johnston, 184 Wis. 794, 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994). accepted Seventh approved doctrine's private citizens acting informants. Paul, F.2d, 645, 648 (1986). reached conclusion Yoon, 398 802, 806-808, 546 977, 548, 163 460 (2005), Circuit's case, contrary though ruled entries. personal believes her complies existing facing actions. Wilson, explained split "[i]f disagree question, unfair subject picking losing side controversy." 618, 1692. Likewise, divergence improper unlawfulness reverse Appeals. ordered. NOTES [1] 30, (1982) equate sued directly Constitution). [2] Virginia Military Institute's word "God" "supper roll call" ceremony Establishment Clause, defendants time. Mellen 327 355, 365-376 (C.A.4 2003), below, asked ruling. Dissenting SCALIA, Chief tangle making." 1022, 1750. "tangle" arose "`settled refusal' entertain prevailed" insulates "locked inside" rulings. 1023, 1024,

Category: 1