October Term 2008 · Docket 07-751
Does a police officer need a specific court ruling to enter a home with a confidential informant?
Officers entered a home with a confidential informant. The homeowner sued for damages. The officers claim legal protection.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Metzler argued the homeowner consented to entry. He said no reasonable officer would doubt this.
Mr. Stirba argued the entry was constitutional. He said no clear law was violated.
Mr. Stewart argued the entry was constitutional. He asked the Court to change the decision order.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the legal shield for police officers. It asks if a general rule protects them. It also asks if a specific court ruling is required.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
The officers want the lower court decision overturned. They want a general rule to provide legal protection.
The homeowner wants the lower court decision to stand. They want the officers to pay damages.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What each side says
The officers argue a general rule protects them. They say no specific ruling was needed.
The homeowner argues no specific rule existed. They say the officers violated clear law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if general consent rules suffice. He questioned the required level of legal detail.
Justice Souter asked if only one case supported the rule. He questioned the source of that case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-13
Why it matters
This case defines the legal shield for police. It determines if officers need specific rulings. It affects how courts handle civil lawsuits against officers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.