Pearson v. Callahan
| Pearson v. Callahan | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 14, 2008 Decided January 21, 2009 |
|
| Full case name | Cordell Pearson, et al., Petitioners v. Afton Callahan |
| Docket nos. | 07-751 |
| Citations | 555 U.S. 223 (more)
129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565
|
| Prior history | District court granted summary judgment to defendants, No. 2:04-CV-00952 (D. Utah, May 18, 2006), 2006 WL 1409130; appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part, 494 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2007). |
| Subsequent history | On remand, appeals court affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment, 557 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2009). |
| Holding | |
| Saucier v. Katz's two-step process is no longer mandatory. Courts using that test may analyze the two steps in whatever order is most appropriate in a particular case. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
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. However, many legal commentators have criticized the ruling in Saucier.
In 2002, a confidential police informant working with five officers from the Central Utah 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" with a listening device, 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 argued that "consent once removed" applied, since the informant was acting as an agent of the police.
The criminal charges against Callahan were prosecuted 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.
...
Wikipedia