Document: 543 U.S. 146 DEVENPECK ET AL.v.ALFORD No. 03-710. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 8, 2004. Decided December 13, Believing that respondent was impersonating a police officer, petitioner Haner, Washington State Patrol pursued and pulled over respondent's vehicle. While questioning at the scene, Devenpeck, Haner's supervisor, discovered taping their conversation arrested him for violating State's Privacy Act. The state trial court subsequently dismissed charge. Respondent then filed this suit in federal court, claiming, among other things, his arrest violated Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. District denied petitioners qualified immunity, case went to trial. jury instructed, inter alia, had establish lack probable cause arrest, traffic stop not crime Washington. found petitioners. Ninth Circuit reversed, based part on its conclusion could have arrest. It rejected petitioners' claim there obstructing law enforcement because those offenses were "closely related" offense invoked by Devenpeck time Held: 1. A warrantless officer is reasonable under Amendment if, given facts known believe has been or being committed. Circuit's additional limitation—that establishing must be to, same conduct as, arresting identifies arrest— inconsistent with Court's precedent, which holds an officer's mind (except he knows) irrelevant cause, see Whren v. States, 517 U. S. 806, 812-815. related offense" rule also condemned perverse consequences: will eliminate sham arrests but officers cease providing reasons cite every class conceivably exist. Pp. 152-156. 2. This decide first instance whether lacked either Circuit, having legally irrelevant, did question. P. 156. 333 F. 3d 972, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, all Members joined, except REHNQUIST, C. who took no decision case. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Maureen A. Hart, Senior Assistant Attorney General Washington, argued With her briefs Christine O. Gregoire, General, Robert K. Costello, Deputy William Berggren Collins, Michael Lynch, Eric Mentzer, General. 3 Comey States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On brief Acting Solicitor Clement, former Olson, Attorneys Keisler Wray, Dreeben, John Elwood, Joel M. Gershowitz, Richard Olderman. 4 R. Stuart Phillips respondent.* 5 JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 6 presents question lawful when criminal stated 7 * 8 night 22, 1997, disabled automobile passengers stranded shoulder Route 16, divided highway, Pierce County, Alford 974 (CA9 2003); App. 94, 98. Jerome car off road behind vehicle, activating "wig-wag" headlights (which flash left right lights alternately). As road, Officer Joi Haner Patrol, one two here, passed from opposite direction. 3d, 974. He turned around check motorists opportunity, arrived, respondent, begun helping change flat tire, hurried back drove away. Ibid. asked if "cop"; they said statements, flashing, wig-wag headlights, them impression. Ibid.; 96. They informed flashlight behind. Id., 97. 9 basis information, radioed Sergeant Gerald concerned "impersonator" "wannabe cop." 97-98. vehicle it over. 975. Through passenger-side window, observed listening Kitsap County Sheriff's Office frequency special radio, handcuffs hand-held scanner car. These bolstered suspicion officer. 106, 107. thought, moreover, seemed untruthful evasive: told worked previously "State Patrol," further questioning, claimed instead Texas shipyard. flashing recently installed car-alarm system, acted though unable trigger system; during these feigned efforts noticed avoided pushing button near knee, suspected (correctly) switch lights. 975; 108. 10 arrived scene short later. After belief id., 110, approached inquired about before, alarm system know how activate them. 52, 138-139. Like skeptical answers. In course tape recorder passenger seat car, play record buttons depressed. ordered remove played recorded tape, recording conversations officers. violation Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030 (1994). 144-145. protested Court-of-Appeals decision, copy glove compartment, permitted roadside 42, 67-68. returned reviewed language attempted unsuccessfully reach prosecutor confirm lawful. 151-154. text Act confirmed unlawful,1 directed take jail. 154. 11 later, reached phone Mark Lindquist, deputy county prosecutor, whom recounted events leading discussed series possible offenses, including making false representation 177-178. Lindquist advised "clearly cause," 179, suggested charged "obstructing public servant" "based runaround [he] gave [Devenpeck]," 157. suggestion, explaining does not, matter policy, "stack charges" against arrestee. 157-158. 12 At booking, 32-33, issued ticket 46.37.280(3) (1994), 24-25. Under law, detained latter only period "reasonably necessary" issue citation. 46.64.015. both charges. 10, 29. B 13 Federal asserted action Stat. 1979, 42 1983, unlawful imprisonment, claims resting upon allegation without motion summary judgment grounds proceeded Police, Case C99-5586RJB (WD Wash., Nov. 30, 2000), Pet. Cert. 40a. instructed that, prevail federal- state-law claim, demonstrate 199-201; exists "if circumstances within knowledge are sufficient warrant prudent person conclude suspect committed, committing, commit crime," 201. Flora, 68 802, 845 2d 1355 (1992), clearly established crime, 202. And find would believed detention 200. object any instructions. unanimous verdict favor or, alternative, new trial, appealed. 25a. 14 panel Appeals finding "no evidence support jury's verdict," majority concluded cited charge "[t]ape conducting Washington." 976. existed law-enforcement 9A.60.040(3) 9A.76.020, because, said, into custody, 976-977. held since, Appeals' objectively [respondent] permissible," 979. Judge Gould dissented ground See 980. We granted certiorari. 541 987 (2004). II 15 protects "[t]he people secure persons, houses, papers, effects, unreasonable searches seizures." conformity common where Watson, 423 411, 417-424 (1976); Brinegar 338 160, 175-176 (1949). Whether depends drawn Maryland Pringle, 540 366, 371 (2003). case, probable-cause inquiry confined bearing actually (in addition) supported invoked. precedent reason limitation. 16 Our cases make clear existence cause. 812-813 (1996) (reviewing cases); Arkansas Sullivan, 532 769 (2001) (per curiam). That say, subjective need provide we repeatedly explained, "`the fact hypothecated legal justification invalidate taken long circumstances, viewed objectively, justify action.'" Whren, supra, 813 (quoting Scott 436 128, 138 (1978)). "[T]he Amendment's concern `reasonableness' allows certain actions whatever intent." 814. "[E]venhanded best achieved application objective standards conduct, rather than depend officer." Horton California, 496 (1990). 17 identified precedent.2 Such makes lawfulness turn motivation officer—eliminating, validating expressed reason. See, e. g., Sheehy Plymouth, 191 15, 20 (CA1 1999); Trejo Perez, 693 482, 485-486 (CA5 1982). means constitutionality set "vary place time," 815, depending states and, so, correctly general exists. An made knowledgeable, veteran valid, whereas rookie precisely not. ascribe such arbitrarily variable protection. 18 Those say although aimed rooting out vice wrong reason, so means—that is, reference statement argument defense proposed can declared invalid malicious justified standard practice stop. rule, "attempt[s] root vices through means," there, reject again here. Subjective intent however determined (and always means), simply invalidating lawfully give 19 Finally, consequences. assuredly good inform never constitutionally required.3 Hence, predictable consequence limiting closely as) contends, hope later validated, even option foreclosed adoption statutory constitutional requirement, exemplify arbitrary consequences rule. initial motivated entirely 106. Before pulling over, indicated radio concern; stop, actively employed why headlights; thought cop," addition, interrogating became convinced answering questions truthfully respect affirmatively trying mislead Only after suspicions developed discover taping, offer Because Devenpeck's render officers' shared obstructed investigation. outcome might well different suspicions; abided county's policy stacking charges; stating grounds. consistently conception produce haphazard results. S., 815. 21 22 contended below decline engage Accordingly, reverse remand proceedings consistent opinion. 23 ordered. 24 CHIEF Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal California et al. Bill Lockyer, Manuel Medeiros, Solicitor, Anderson, Chief Mary Jo Graves, Janet E. Neeley, Supervising Lee Seale Patrick J. Whalen, Anabelle Rodríguez, Secretary Justice Puerto Rico, respective follows: Troy King Alabama, Jane Brady Delaware, Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Charles Foti, Jr., Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Thomas Reilly Massachusetts, Cox Michigan, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, W. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Pappert Pennsylvania, Henry McMaster South Carolina, L. Shurtleff Utah; Center Community Interest Miguel Estrada H. Dupree, Jr.; National League Cities Ruda Andrew Pincus. Jonathan D. Hacker Pamela Harris Association Criminal Defense Lawyers affirmance. relevant provision states: "Except otherwise provided chapter, shall individual, partnership, corporation, association, agencies, political subdivisions intercept, . [p]rivate conversation, device electronic designed transmit regardless powered actuated obtaining consent persons engaged conversation." 9.73.030(1)(b) least adopted variation looks booking. SeeGassner Garland, 864 394, 398 1989); 1999) (holding cannot booking related). Most our discussion opinion, invalidity, applies well. Even absent requirement individual wonder long. "[P]ersons promptly brought before neutral magistrate judicial determination cause."County Riverside McLaughlin, 500 44, 53 (1991).

Category: 0