{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CB Devenpeck v. Alford - initially was for a whole...

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}