Devenpeck v. Alford
Citation and Court
543 U.S. 146 (2004) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Washington state trooper Devenpeck arrested Alford, a motorist, for recording police conversations in violation of a state privacy statute. The charge was later dismissed because the statute did not prohibit such recording. The officer had other reasons that might have supported arrest—including impersonating an officer and a suspended license—but these were not the stated grounds for arrest. Alford sued for unlawful arrest.
Issue
Must the offense for which probable cause exists to arrest be “closely related” to the offense the officer announces as the basis for the arrest?
Holding
No; a warrantless arrest is constitutionally valid if the officer has objective probable cause to believe the arrested person committed any crime, even if the specific offense for which probable cause exists was not the offense stated by the officer at the time of arrest.
Rule / Doctrine
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest is an objective standard—it turns on what a reasonable officer could conclude, not on the officer’s subjective characterization of the offense. An arrest is lawful if, at the time of arrest, there was probable cause to believe the arrestee committed any crime, regardless of whether that is the offense the officer cited.
Significance
Devenpeck eliminates a “closely related offense” limitation that some lower courts had imposed, holding that officers need not correctly identify the offense in order for an arrest to be valid. It reinforces the objective nature of the probable cause inquiry consistent with Whren v. United States.