Opinion ID: 1956866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Law Enforcement Defense

Text: This court, in striking the balance between individual rights and the need for public protection, has held that law enforcement officers and the District (liable under respondeat superior principles) can defend against claims such as those advanced by Mr. Marshall by proving a good faith and reasonable belief in the validity of the arrest and search and in the necessity for carrying out the arrest and search in the way the arrest was made and the search was conducted. Wade v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 310 A.2d 857, 862 (1973) (en banc), quoting Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339, 1348 (4th Cir. 1973). This defense does not require proof of constitutional probable cause but, rather, of a good faith and reasonable belief that one's conduct is lawful. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, supra at 1348. See Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 400 F.Supp. 186, 213 n.71 (D.D.C. 1975), aff'd in relevant part, 184 U.S.App. D.C. 215, 566 F.2d 107 (1977). This means that a police officer need not be psychic in anticipating a court's later constitutional evaluation of his actions, provided that in light of the law and circumstances known to him (including constructive knowledge) he honestly and reasonably thinks his actions are lawful. See Wade, supra .