Devenpeck v. Alford
Alford was arrested and spent the night in jail for tape recording his conversation with police officers during a traffic stop. A Washington state court dismissed the charges against him since taping police officers during the performance of their public duties is not illegal under the Washington Privacy Act. Alford then filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging that his arrest, incarceration and prosecution violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The officers claimed they had probable cause to arrest Alford for violation of the Privacy Act and were entitled to qualified immunity–the limited protection from civil suit that police officers enjoy except when their conduct violates an individual’s “clearly established” legal rights. The jury was instructed that “clearly established” state law at the time of the incident did not bar the type of recording for which Alford was arrested. A jury found in favor of the officers and the district court denied Alford's motion for a new trial.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, stating that Alford’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of his arrest because any arrest made without probable cause is unlawful, unless probable cause exists for a “closely related” crime that stems from the “same conduct for which the suspect was arrested.” The court also denied the officers qualified immunity, holding that the “closely related” rule was “clearly established” as the prevailing law in both the Ninth Circuit and in Washington, and therefore, it was “clearly established” that Alford’s arrest was unlawful.
Questions Presented:
Under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test, an arrest is deemed "reasonable" if there is probable cause to believe that a violation of law
has occurred. Two judicial circuits find an arrest reasonable if, based on an objective assessment by a reasonable officer, there is probable cause to arrest for any offense. On the other hand, at
least five judicial circuits find an arrest to be reasonable only if there is probable cause to arrest for crimes "closely related" to the crime or crimes articulated by the arresting officer. This
case presents the following questions:
1. Does an arrest violate the Fourth Amendment when a police officer has probable cause to make an arrest for one offense, if that offense is not closely related to the offense articulated by the
officer at the time of the arrest?
2. For the purpose of qualified immunity, was the law clearly established when there was a split in the circuits regarding the application of the "closely related offense doctrine," the Ninth
Circuit had no controlling authority applying the doctrine, and Washington state law did not apply the doctrine?
