Devenpeck v. Alford
Headline: Police arrest rules clarified — Court reverses Ninth Circuit and allows arrests when facts known support any crime, even if officers state a different offense, changing how stops and roadside recordings are treated.
Holding: The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that an officer may lawfully arrest when the facts the officer knew established probable cause for any crime, even if the officer cited a different offense, because subjective intent is irrelevant.
- Allows arrests when facts known support any criminal charge, even if officer cites a different offense.
- Invalidates Ninth Circuit’s "closely related offense" limitation on probable cause.
- Officer’s subjective motive no longer decisive in judging arrest lawfulness.
Summary
Background
A motorist stopped to help stranded drivers was pulled over by a Washington State Patrol officer after the motorists said his flashing “wig‑wag” lights and statements made them think he was a police officer. The officers saw a police‑band radio, handcuffs, and a tape recorder in the car. The officers became suspicious that he was impersonating a police officer and that he was evasive. When a sergeant later discovered a tape of the roadside conversation, he arrested the motorist for violating Washington’s Privacy Act for recording officers without consent. The state later dismissed the charges. The motorist sued the officers claiming the arrest lacked probable cause.
Reasoning
The core question was whether an arrest is lawful when the facts known to the arresting officers support probable cause for a crime other than the one they announced at arrest. The Ninth Circuit held that probable cause must relate to the specific offense the officer stated and be “closely related.” Justice Scalia’s opinion reversed. The Court said probable cause depends on the objective facts known to the officers, not their subjective reason or which offense they named. The Court rejected the “closely related offense” limitation and remanded without deciding whether probable cause existed for impersonation or obstruction.
Real world impact
The decision means officers’ stated reasons for arrest no longer limit what objective facts can establish probable cause. It affects roadside stops and disputes over recordings of police, and it may change how officers describe reasons for arrests. Because the Court did not decide whether other offenses were in fact supported, this case does not finally resolve whether the motorist committed impersonation or obstruction.
Dissents or concurrances
The Ninth Circuit panel was divided; one judge would have found the arrest reasonable based on the officers’ view that the motorist violated the law.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?