CB Devenpeck v. - initially was for a whole different reason Holding No the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the man for violating or

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Devenpeck v. Alford 543 U.S. 146 (2004) Fact: Procedural Facts: Trial Court in Washington. Federal District Court. State Court-of-appeals (9 th District). US supreme Court. Operative Facts: An officer pulled over a man who had wig-wag headlights, and his probable cause was because he thought the guy was a impersonating a cop. But after he pulled him over, he found that the person was taping the conversation, and fought that it was part of the Washington Privacy Act. Issue: Broad Question: Narrow Question: Did the officer have the right to arrest the man even if his probable cause
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: initially was for a whole different reason . Holding: No, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the man for violating, or probable violation of the privacy act. Rule: Although the probable cause does not have to “match” why the person was arrested, it must at least be somewhat related in scope. Rational: The courts believe that if this was okay, then cops could pull anyone over for any reason, and find a wrongdoing of one sort or another, and rely that the first probable cause would not matter. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM. PRO 125 taught by Professor Sobel during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online