Opinion ID: 223715
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limits of Devenpeck

Text: Devenpeck permits retrospective analysis of probable cause. 543 U.S. at 153, 125 S.Ct. 588. The Court held that the crime for which there was probable cause need not be the one that the officer stated at the time of the arrest. Id. at 154-55, 125 S.Ct. 588. Indeed, according to Devenpeck, the offense on which the post hoc analysis is based need not even be closely related to the crime stated by the officer at the time of the arrest or charging. Id. at 153-55, 125 S.Ct. 588. It is perfectly permissible for an officer or district attorney to later determine the appropriate statute under which to charge a defendant. This case, however, raises a question that Devenpeck did not address: While a retrospective analysis of probable cause is appropriate, can an arrest without a warrant be justified after the fact with any statute  even one that is so remote and obscure as to not be within any reasonable officer's arsenal of criminal offenses? The district court did not ask or address this question. The concern in Devenpeck was that the constitutionality of an arrest should not depend on the experience of the arresting officer. The rule that the offense establishing probable cause must be `closely related' to, and based on the same conduct as, the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of arrest, the Court explained, would render the constitutionality of arrests subject to the experience of the arresting officer. Id. at 153-54, 125 S.Ct. 588. An arrest made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer would be valid, whereas an arrest made by a rookie in precisely the same circumstances would not. Id. at 154, 125 S.Ct. 588. But here it is likely that no reasonable officer, no matter how experienced, would have known of § 205.415, collecting for benefit without authority. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been charged with this crime in Nevada. Indeed, even in this case, once the officials had discovered the crime, Rosenbaum was never charged or prosecuted with it. It cannot be that probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists so long as the facts may arguably give rise to probable cause under any criminal statute on the books  even if the crime is buried deep in a dust-covered tomb and never charged or prosecuted. If it were so, officers could arrest without a warrant under virtually any set of facts and later search the legal archives for a statute that might arguably justify it. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's fundamental requirement that searches be cabined by the requirement of reasonableness. To be clear, our holding is narrow: while the crime for which there is probable cause need not be related to the crime for which an individual is arrested without a warrant, the crime must be reasonably within the arsenal of crimes that officers enforce in the state. [2]