Devenpeck v. Alford

What This Case Is About

Devenpeck v. Alford is a Supreme Court decision establishing that the legal justification for an arrest does not have to match the reason the officer gives at the time. If probable cause exists for any offense — even one the officer never mentions — the arrest is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s “closely related offense” doctrine.

The Facts

Washington State Patrol Officer Haner pulled over respondent Alford, believing he was impersonating a police officer. Alford’s car had a radio scanner and was equipped with other accessories resembling a police vehicle.

While Officer Haner’s supervisor, Devenpeck, was questioning Alford at the scene, he discovered that Alford was recording their conversation. Devenpeck arrested Alford for violating Washington’s Privacy Act, which prohibited recording private conversations without consent.

The state trial court subsequently dismissed the Privacy Act charge. Alford then filed a § 1983 suit claiming his arrest violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case went to trial, where the jury was instructed that taping police at a traffic stop was not a crime in Washington. The jury found for the officers.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It rejected the officers’ argument that there was probable cause to arrest Alford for impersonating a police officer or obstructing an officer because those offenses were not “closely related” to the Privacy Act offense that Devenpeck cited at the time of arrest.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit (Chief Justice Rehnquist not participating).

Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, held that a warrantless arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where, given the facts known to the officer, there is probable cause to believe any crime has been or is being committed. The officer’s subjective reason for the arrest — or the offense he announces — is irrelevant.

The Court made several key points:

The officer’s stated reason does not limit probable cause. Under Whren v. United States, an arresting officer’s state of mind (except for the facts he knows) is irrelevant to the probable cause determination. The Ninth Circuit’s requirement that the actual offense be “closely related” to the stated offense was inconsistent with this precedent.

The “closely related” rule has perverse consequences. Rather than eliminating sham arrests, the rule would cause officers to stop providing reasons for arrests altogether — or to cite every conceivable offense. Neither outcome serves constitutional values.

Remand for probable cause determination. The Court did not decide whether officers actually had probable cause to arrest for impersonating or obstructing an officer, since the Ninth Circuit had found those offenses irrelevant and never analyzed them. The case was remanded for that determination.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Devenpeck v. Alford has major implications for false arrest claims:

• The stated reason for arrest doesn’t matter. If your arrest was supported by probable cause for any offense — even one the officer never mentioned — the arrest is constitutional. This makes it harder to challenge arrests where some arguable basis exists.

• Officers benefit from hindsight justifications. In defending against a false arrest claim, officers and their lawyers can point to any offense supported by the facts known at the time, even if the arresting officer was unaware of that legal theory.

• Focus on the facts, not the label. When evaluating whether your arrest was lawful, what matters is the totality of facts known to the officer — not the charge that was filed or the reason given verbally.

• This cuts both ways. While Devenpeck helps officers, it also means that if no probable cause exists for any offense based on the facts known to the officer, the arrest is unlawful — regardless of what the officer believed.

Key Takeaway

Devenpeck v. Alford means that in a false arrest case, you must show that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest you for any criminal offense — not just the one stated at the time. If the facts known to the officer at the moment of arrest supported probable cause for any crime, the arrest stands, even if the officer’s stated reason was entirely wrong.