Mr. Chief justice may i please the court. A probable cause is a practical standard and not accounts for the practical limitations officers face when making arrests decisions including the inability to look directly into the minds of suspects offering innocent explanations for suspicious conduct, and so i don a case like this one, but its established in circumstantial evidence of mens rea but a strong or at least fair arrest is reasonable and constitutional, and more clearly qualified immunity applies. Lets turn to the totality of the circumstance from the perspective before you do that, given the other charges in the case relating to Disorderly Conduct and negligent supervision, where do they stand and are they in any way effective in the argument . We do not pursue an argument existed for Disorderly Conduct and supervision. That claim fails if there was neither probable cause were qualified immunity. Thats where they stand, your honor. If i may turn back to the totality of circumstances, my clients responded to neighbors complained im not sure i understand what you just said. Whether we hold the qualified Community Grounds or probable cause, i dont think it affects those claims, does it . I think those stand on their own dont they ask no, your honor, the negligence would fail as a matter of law that was undisputed in the court. So my clients responded to a neighbors complaints about illegal activities to a house in the residential communita resids supposed to be vacant and found a group of partiers, none of whom claimed any right of the home. The home owner im sorry why is it their right . If someone invites me into what they claim a is their home or place of living, if you said theres an invitation. A claim of invitation to i dont see a property right when i get invited into somebodys home i dont ask to look at their lease or ask for them to establish to my satisfaction or anyone elses their right to be there. I assume if they are there they can invite me in. We are not suggesting that there has to be some type of confirmation by any party guest of the inviters right to invite. What we are saying instead us from the office of this perspective, looking at the totality of circumstances there was a fair probability that they were trespassing either knowingly or negligently. Its not about whether or not a party goer needs to confirm an invitation. This is from the officers perspective if he has the probability a prosecutor leader can decide whether to press charges if there was that fair probability here based on the totality of the circumstances. So no one was supposed to be there and he hadnt been there to guard against the entry, and the house appeared vacant. It confirmed the neighbor said it was supposed to be vacant. It was in disarray and this is a quote from the report january 12 in disarray in a manner consistent with being a vacant house it looked like it was being used just for the party like no one was living there. This is the type of vacant homes trespassers target. To make sure i understand, the tip is a neighbor saying the home is supposed to be vacant and yet theres a party going on, it isnt just a neighbor calling ancalling and saying itd party disturbing my sleep, did that call specifically say its supposed to be vacant, is that correct . Thats correct, there is actually multiple calls to. How many were there for calls to the officers before they went there . Before they went there. We dont know the number, your honor. We do know from the report multiple people did complain that we dont know if it was before or after the beginning of the investigation, but there were some calls before the investigation. Peoplepeople said the house s supposed to be vacant. We know of at least two. That when the Police Actually entered the home they could see with their own eyes the house was unfurnished and in disarray no chairs and mattresses there were some chairs and a mattress and beer and liquor scattered about. The utilities were working. But that is consistent with the claim of right of the owner. The trespassers target they cant homes just like this one and indeed sometimes engage in the type of activities that we see here. Were the types of anonymous . No, your honor, there are names in the report. I am told perhaps i should take this into account, that compared to the middle ages which im more familiar, people today can the younger people frequently say theres a party at joes house and before you know what, 5 it, 50 people go ts house and they dont really ask themselves this joe owned the house or rent a house, its his house into the normal assumption would be its joes house. And nobody questions it. So, whats the evidence here thats different from that . If i think thats what happened, the people there were over there whether they knew when secondhand, third hand, whatever arent normally naturally going to think that joe had the right to the house. But here this is different than that because for two reasons, first of i take the hypothetical, joe had the authority to throw the party not talking about his authority, im talking about the partygoers and what they think when they hear there is a party. I dont want to repeat myself. I am saying what i woul but i we is the normal fault in the partygoers house is no more than just what i said. Theres a party at joes house, lets go, period. Now, in my mind that doesnt give any reason whatsoever for thinking that this party goer suspects, knows or believes that it is and joes house. So i want you to tell me whats different about this case. Whats different about this case are these facts. First it was supposed to be vacant and it was a house where the owner said put yourself in the mind of the partygoers. The police then has to be thinking about the partygoers. So, one thing as the police man knows and maybe teaches this it wasnt joes house, thats one thing so i have to ask myself is that a reason for thinking the partygoers knew it. Okay what is the second . The absence of us suppose that host you can name it however you want, the host wasnt even there. There wer were a legal left is happening. Let me stop you there. Didnt the person that extended the invitation, hadnt she been there and said she left to go to the store but she hadnt been there . There was evidence that she told the officer shed gone to the store but the partygoers didnt say that. In response to the question, shes not here. Okay im trying to get a fully answer. I have one, the house looked vacant, number two, that in fact, peaches didnt have a right to be in the house. I want a complete list of things that makthethings that make it. Number three, peaches wasnt fair and number four, the partygoers acted suspiciously in response to the police presence. They fled an and hated acted vey suspiciously when asked questions like who is the owner, who lives here, no one answered the questions according to deposition. And we shouldnt discount the fact peaches proved herself to be quite a basis, untrustworthy, repeatedly hung up on the police when they tried to investigate, she said she admitted to trespassing herself. Given all the circumstances no thats it, nothing else. There is more. It can be used here as a basis for the necessary mens rea. Lets remember either negligence or knowledge assuming the partygoers actually relied upon invitation and even assuming they believe she had the permission to invite them if the actual reliance was negligent nonetheless it was criminal from columbia so the court of appeals here in what i think is an impractical approach is a practical standard said they had totheir understanding of the credibility of the partygoers invitation. We dont think that is what the Police Officers are required to do on this team. Police officers need the leeway. Why werent any of them arrested or are one of them said she smelled marijuana but as i understand no drugs were found. Not marijuana or any other. Why werent people who were suspected of engaging in sex arrested, why werent people standing around, the strippers arrested for those activities if they were a legal . Everyone was arrested because officers believe it had probable cause to believe everyone in the house committed the offense of unlawful entry. Specific people may have committed other crimes that they were not charged with those crimes. How many people were in the house . At the time, 21. Can you tell me how you think that Summary Judgment of the case does or doesnt matter . Usually in a judgment as we say we need to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and many of these facts you could see it has one explanation or another explanation. So, how does that Summary Judgment standard fit with the probable cause standard and also the qualified immunity standard, how do those three things Work Together . I think the facts were undisputed and if he attempts to dispute them come from reasons of having to discuss the efforts to redraw the established facts are for the court and probable cause as a matter of law. The court puts itself in the shoes of the officer and thing was it reasonable to a rest based upon these facts and of course if their evidence is strong record will speak to you were happy to discuss the reasons the disputed facts come too late. What are those . Because it was inappropriate for the respondents to wait even in the papers its inappropriate for them to ask the court courte the first to part the record closely to consider the claim of dispute. Why would they be asking that . Why would you be entitled to Summary Judgment in view of the facts that they claim no . Because the disputes are waived or forfeited and especially in the briefing and opposition before the court decided in its discretion to grant assertion to the two questions. I would note even if you took the facts that are undisputed even now and add them to the questions presented, that would be sufficient to establish probable cause as a matter of law. No matter how you would want to take the influences it wouldnt matter because again the influences are for the court and found to be the established facts. It didnt dispute the facts and opposition or that relate to the petition. Thats right. They agreed. The first sentence says that the case is about among other things what happens when the owner has indicated to the police that he is not getting permission into the attempt to dispute that. If you actually look at the totality of circumstances and ts and allow the officers confused common sense, a readily available in defense would say the partygoers were not blameless tricked into someone elses house, but the simpler explanation they were trespassing. A party with drugs in the strippers in a place they thought they wouldnt be caught. They were not charged with this. Unlawful entry was the charge. I thought that charge was not made once they were at the Police Station and instead they were charged with Disorderly Conduct. Thats correct. The arresting officers indicated that the reason was unlawful entry. Wasnt that because when their superior was on the scene and determined the owner wasnt there he thought that was sufficient to arrest . Yes, your honor, that appears to be the subject of reasoning. Probable cause is an object of analysis. I would like to say one word about the qualified immunity. I would hope that the debate today and the judges on the circuit filter was probable cause would be enough to salvage the constitution question wasnt beyond debate and i will preserve the rest of my time. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Chief justice may i please the court. There are two fundamental errors in the way that the lower courts analyze the question of probable cause in this case. First, they took certain important facts out of context, viewed them in isolation and engaged in the sort of divide and conquer analysis that the court has said is inappropriate. And second, they concluded that because those facts were susceptible to be innocent explanations they could not contribute to a finding of probable cause. Neither of those is perfect. When Police Officers encounter a criminal suspect they are required to dra draw fair infers from the entire constellation of the facts drawing on practical and common sense experience. Those will rarely be cleared and often save point in different directions. When they do, the court said repeatedly that the possibility of competing inferences supports, not undermines, the finding of probable cause that is especially true in the case of mens rea that isnt directly notable. The Police Officer cannot appear iinto 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 end for the mental state is, certainly Police Officers should be required to do so under the 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 secondhand invitation to a party or that they cannot go to a party at the home of somebody they dont know where that when they arrive they have to inspect the least to ensure they have authority to invite them. All we are saying is if a person finds himself or herself in a compromising situation here finding themselves in a vacant home that actually is vacant where as a matter of fact they are an intruder committing the act of the crime and especially if there are surrounding circumstances that would lead an observer to think that may be what is going on, then the deck is stacked against the person. You are saying anytime the police man goes into the house and theres a party and people tell you somebody invited me and it turns out that somebody didnt have a right to be in the house gets arrested . Im not saying that. There is one other thing, the other thing is if it is partially furnished. Whenever you see a sparsely furnished house with some people in it and they say joe invited everybody to his house for a party and it turns out joe hadnt rented the house you could arrest and isnt that what youre saying . There are two answers. One is that would be precisely the bright line rule that the court hacourt has repeatedly sas not to be imposed in probable cause cases. But i think instead is requiredd is an analysis of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the statement of the claim of an innocent until i dont see anything else here and maybe its a question of believability. Let me talk about the facts of this case if i can turn to that. Its useful to think of this as two sides of a ledger. Theres the condition of the home and on the other side statements of the people who were there. If you think about the condition that police were spawned into a citizen complaint, multiple citizen complaints that this was a vacant home and they said they had been repeatedly exploited in the past. Is a story of teachers gave to peaches that extended the invitation of the story is she had just leased the house, so if Somebody Just leased a house, but sparse furnishings would indeed at all incriminating. I think that is a perfectly permissible inference from the fact that described, justice ginsburg. I think our only point is that its not the only permissible inference based on the totality of the facts. In addition to the tip they received when the officers arrived, they noticed that the condition of the home was consistent with being a vacant house its not just that it was sparsely furnished, it had folding chairs and a mattress and was described as being in a state of disarray. If all a tab according to you with a bed and some folding chairs and some utilities where nothing had been turned off, what happens during the party so what was different in this disarray from the party . Of the evidence in the record indicates that the house was considerably more dirty i than just an ordinary house. In fact one of the individuals said the floor was so dirty she was unwilling to sit on it. There was trash strewn about. I think all of those things would lead an officer to think that perhaps these are just particularly nasty houseguest, but this is also consistent with the type of party people would throw in a vacant house where they are not too concerned about the state they leave it in. There is much an officer can look at here and say i think i have probable cause and certainly when the qualified immunity standard is on top of that it makes it even easier for the officer. I guess one of the things that strikes me is why there is resistance. When its looked at from the point of view from the partygoer it seems a little different and i take the point that its not the standard, but we are setting rules and those are going to affect how Police Officers act in the future as well. When looked at from the reasonable partygoers view there are these parties that once long ago i used to be invited to where you didnt just know the host but joe is having a party and can i say that long ago marijuana was present at the parties and it just isnt obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say ive got to get out of here. It seems a little hard but they are subject to arrest, so how do i think about that question . I think the overarching point is that as i said, when a partygoer goes to a house if it turns out it actually is vacant and they are intruding, the Police Encounter upon the situation they just know that joe is having a party and they are having a good time. I think that is an entirely possible inference to draw but its not the only entrance and here theres a number of things that suggest that isnt what was happening. Its not just that it looked vacant and the people would be able to observe that this looks like a situation where we should not be. Its that the individuals had nothing to dispel the probable cause. If anything they reinforced it. None of them knew who lived there and when asked who invited you almost all of them said somebody else. The record doesnt name any particular person but we do know that only two of the individuals named peaches and they were not the actual party givers themselves. When she was called a as it was explained earlier, she was evasive, she lied to the officers and said she had authority to approve a party when she didnt. Didnt. It was bolted into the understanding of the facts and suggest they may be hearing a story that is true both from the partygoers and peaches and i think that when they arrived at the scene and see the process of being committed they can at least reasonable debate could reasonably think the people here know what they are doing. That isnt always going to get you over the probable cause because as i said thi this is an areas susceptible to those sort of bright line rules but its going to inform of a pruden