[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS has another bizarre ruling (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/14/2004 3:05:28 PM EDT
|
If I am reading this correct. If the cops tell you you are under arrests for A, and it later turns out to be BS, you cant sue them for false arrests provided there was another lawfull reason to arrest, even if they didnt tell you of that other charge/possible charge. I'm not sure I'm getting this one? High Court: Arrest on 'Reasonable' Grounds OK, Even If Charges Later Fall Through ............ HOPE YEN Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that police have authority to arrest a person on an accusation that later falls apart, so long as officers had a second, valid reason for the detention. The 8-0 ruling Monday set aside a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Jerome Alford. Two Washington State Patrol officers had arrested him for tape recording their conversation during a traffic stop in November 1997. During the traffic stop, Alford told the officers he had case law showing the taping was legal. Police arrested him anyway, partly for the separate reason, which they did not tell him, that he appeared to be impersonating a police officer. The 9th Circuit said the arrest was improper, ruling that the separate allegation was not sufficiently "closely related" to the initial offense for which he was arrested. But in an opinion Monday by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court disagreed. Scalia reasoned that the Fourth Amendment holds an arrest to be lawful if it was "reasonable" given all the facts at the time. Thus, even though officers were wrong about the tape-recording allegation, the suspicious circumstances in which the man appeared to be impersonating an officer could justify the arrest, he said. Scalia also noted that a ruling to the contrary would deter officers from providing reasons for their arrest, as they did in Alford's case, to avoid having their grounds challenged later if they were proved wrong. Under Washington state law, officers are not required to state the reasons for an arrest. "A predictable consequence ... is not ... that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest," Scalia wrote. The state troopers said they became suspicious one night in 1997 after noticing Alford's car stopped behind a disabled vehicle on the highway. Alford said he was providing help and then hastily left, but officers tracked him down after they learned he had flashing headlights on his car, as is typical of police vehicles. After noticing that Alford was listening to a police band radio and had a scanner, the officers arrested him on privacy allegations after discovering he was recording their conversation. The privacy charge was later dismissed on grounds that conversations between police and highway motorists are not private. Monday's ruling sends the case back to the 9th Circuit to determine whether police had probable cause to arrest Alford for investigation of impersonating an officer. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who did not attend oral arguments for the November case, did not take part in the decision. The case is Devenpeck v. Alford, 03-710.  |
|
So the lesson is "don't break the law - because if you're commiting ANY crime when you are arrested, you cannot sue for false arrest, even if you were arrested for a different (and wrong) reason" Is that pretty much it? (I'm seriously asking, not trying to be sarcastic). |
|
Ruling here: a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13dec20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-710.pdf PDF 12 pages. |
|
So the cops suspect you of growing weed, but can't prove it. They ask for a search warrant, but the judge says no. So instead they bust into your house to arrest the kiddy porn kingpin. Oops, you weren't involved in kiddy porn ... but look at all those pot plants. What a lucky break. |
|
Yes, that's what I gather. If you get arrested for drug posession and it turns out to be baby powder but later find that you're a felon in posession of a firearm, you are still stuck in the mud. BTW...
|
I'm not sure. I'm having a hard time determining if this one is a protect the cops from civil action ruling, or proceed with prosecution ruling? On further review it looks like they are saying even though the tape recording arrest was unlawful, they can proceeed with prosecution on the impersonation charge. |
If the Judge says no on the warrant, they won't be busting into |
This is bizarre??? Sounds pretty damn logical to me.
This SCOTUS decision wouldn't apply to the circumstances you mentioned. They say that if when arrested on an "accusation that later falls apart" (i.e. invalid, or groundless/unfounded charge) AND there is ALSO a second, VALID, reason for arrest, known to the officer at the time of the arrest, then the arrest is valid. This doesn't seem to invalidate the longstanding case law regarding the "fruits of the poisoned tree" theory where an illegal arrest, search or seizure is made and therefore any information/evidence obtained as a direct result of that action is rendered inadmissable for trial. Sounds more like, as long as the officer has at least one valid reason for an arrest, he can make an arrest.  ETA: This is probably why it was an 8-0 decision. Too bad CJ Rehnquist wasn't sitting, it'd have been 9-0.
|
Scalia said it was to get the officers away from not stating the reason for arrest. And the part I highlighted in red, I see no problem with. |
|
So what is new -- other than the Supreme Court having -- once again -- to slap down the 9th Circuit? Example: Cop arrests John Doe for driving a stolen car but cop turns out to be wrong. After Doe's car is inventoried after impoundment, they find 10 lbs of heroin in the trunk. Reason for stop and arrest completely different from final VALID charge. Unless I'm misunderstanding the facts (I ought to read the case before I spout off but am too lazy), this has been the law forever. You can't expect the cop on the street to be able to articulate a legally sufficient COMPLAINT/INDICTMENT there on the street ...especially with the consequence that if he does not, the defendant is free to go regardless of what other laws he has violated -- that were not apparent (or perhaps even known) to the cop at the time... Edited to add: 9th Circuit = California |
|
This ruling makes sense yet still disturbs me greatly. Somehow I feel the 4th is in trouble here. How would this incident be interpreted; Cops get search warrant wrong, bust in door and are greeted by gun wielding home owner. Search warrant obviously wrong but home owner did brandish firearm at the po-po. I know the brandishing is a driect result of the entry but is it a crime and can home owner be prosecuted? Curious, just curious... |
I thought thats what a warrant was for, assigning the State the right to Search & Seizure based on evidence. Guess not. This is not good news for anyone. "Oh, we came in looking for illegal porn, but look, this here AR is 15.9999" long instead of the legaal 16" length... BINGO" Bad day for America. |
I don't believe that the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine holds much water anymore. |
Different facts. This is not a search warrant case and is not precedent for that situation. Change the facts and you change the law. |
Your scenario wouldn't be affected by this decision. It's also a little vague, depends on what's wrong with the warrant. He likely wouldn't be prosecuted though, because most people brandishing a firearm at the "po-po" are more likely to get buried. |
|
For those who think there's something bizarre or unconstitutional, or "rights-taking awayish" or the like... take time to re-read this decision clearly... All it boils down to is to say that if at the time of an arrest, the arresting officer has at least one legitimate reason for the arrest, then said arrest is valid. It is simply common sense. It is as if SCOTUS issued a ruling stating that water is wet. 
|
But it is encroachment. I hope the Republican administrations don't confuse the voters' refusal of a Liberal regime as the same thing as giving up liberty. They are demented if they think so. Either party would disarm us in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Historically, of all the groups that have taken up arms against the standing govt, it has been the south and the "religous right." I am not a southerner nor a religious man but I bring up the point because I believe in religious, political, personal, and self-defense freedoms as human rights. |
Well said. 
|
| How's this? Cop runs a license plate number but transposes a number. Plate comes back stolen, he stops the car believing it to be stolen and finds a dead body in the back seat. The cop isnt in any trouble civily, becuase he acted in good faith. However the murder cant be prosecuted becuase the reason for the initial stop was invalid. Fruit of the poisenous tree. I'm concerned that this ruling will change that. |
This is not the scenario I am envisioning, but rather a license for the police to go "fishing". In your scenario I would agree the guy (in your example) needs to be arrested but a wholesale abandonment of the 4th is not the answer. It is not what a law will do that needs to be considered but rather what abuse of the law will do. This ruling seems to invite abuse. |
It won't. |
No poisonous tree, the dead body was in plain view, besides the Poisonous Tree was when the initial search was illegal. In this case the search wouldn't be illegal because they didn't break the law in making the stop , if the stop wasn't invalid then the search wasn't invalid. Poisonous Tree applies when the police action was improper, it wasn't here. Now if the officer had purposefully transposed numbers or otherwise cooked up a reason to make a stop than maybe but not in this scenario. |
I'm my example there is no lawful reason for the car stop. the car is not stolen, a good faith mistake is still a mistake. Anything found during the unlawful stop is inadmissable. |
A mistake doesn't affect a stop's validity. You are trying to re-define the word "mistake" to fit your desired use.  It does not mean invalid or illegal, which you are implying. A traffic stop is ONLY invalid if an officer doesn't have probable cause for the stop. In the case you propose, he does have PC, UNLESS he PURPOSELY transposes the numbers KNOWING the ones he ran are NOT the ones on the plate. This SCOTUS ruling has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with making traffic stops, or searches (whether legal or illegal). It specifically deals with a requirement that for a custodial arrest to be made, the arresting officer has to have a valid reason for said arrest. |
|
This is nothing for the anti-cops to get hysterical about. Policing 101 dictates that you list the smallest possible item you can on a search warrant, so you can justify looking in obscure places. Any contraband then found, although not on the search warrant, if you can justify why you looked in that particular place, is now proper evidence. Police have always had a "good faith" protection-can it be abused, hell yes, but that has to be addressed in the individual case. On the case of the traffic stop, lets say a citizen is the victim of a car theft, the police recover the vehicle, and contact the complaintant. The complaintant is driving away from the auto pound, a patrolman for whatever reason runs the plate; the plate comes back stolen because the NCIC clerk hasn't removed it from the computer yet. The cop stops the car, the clerical error is cleared up, BUT the complaintant has a bag of marijiuana under the front seat he brought with him when he picked up the car. The comp will be charged, and the charge will stick, even though in retrospect the stop was a "bad stop." |
|
Sticking warrants into the hypotheticals only muddies the water. What they seem to be saying is that if an officer has 2 articulable bases for arrest, but only articulates one of them, the arrest is valid, even if the bottom falls out of the articulated charge. You are driving a red Viper, wearing a blued hooded sweat shirt, two blocks from a minute market that was robbed 5 minutes earlier by a guy with clothes and a vehicle matching that description. The cop (a dopey, overeager rookie) runs the tag as he stops you, and the Viper comes back stolen. Cop stops you and arrests you for the robbery. Doesn't say anything about the GTA. Turns out the real robber was captured while you were being cuffed. You are released after booking on the robbery, no charges filed; the GTA is not filed either. You sue for false arrest. The USSCt says "Piss off. You were going to be arrested anyway." Cop lawfully stops you for speeding. As he approaches you, you toss a joint out the window. He collects the joint, runs your license, issues a ticket for speeding, and arrests you for driving on a suspended license, because dispatch (or his computer) is on the fritz, he can't verify your license, and you look a jackass who'd drive on a suspended license. Before cuffing you, he makes you tear the joint up and scatter the pot on the ground, 'cause he's a nice guy. Turns out your license was valid. You sue for false arrest. The USSCt says "Piss off. You were going to be arrested anyway." That's how I read it. |
....you read it wrong. |
. . . and you're full of shit. But when an aggressive display of ignorance is called for, you're the man, Ryann. Why don't you give us the full benefit of your top-drawer legal education and years of practice reading, construing, and arguing appellate opinions? Don't torment us by showing the mere butt-crack of your insolence. Show your whole ass. |
I repeat-you read it wrong. I never claimed to have a "top drawer" legal education, but you'd rather use this thread to inject your anti cop ignorance than see the decision for what it is-much ado about NOTHING. Once again.....YOU READ IT WRONG. |
Untwist your knickers, Mary. What have you been doing on the job that makes you assume everything you read is anti-cop? Time for a trip to EAP and the union rep? The opinion says that so long as the police have probable for an arrest for something, even if they do not name or otherwise articulate the offense for which they have probable cause, and even if they say the arrest is for a crime as to which they do not have PC, the arrest is valid. In the original case, the arresting officers had probable cause to believe that the arrestee had committed the crime of Impersonating an LEO. They believed they had probable cause to arrest him for illegal interception of oral communications, and that's what they arrested him for. They did not have PC for illegal interception. The 9th Circuit ruled that the false arrest claim was not defeated by the existence of PC for the impersonating charge, crafting a novel requirement that the unarticulated offense for which there was PC would have to be "connected" to the stated charge in order for the arrest to be valid. The SCt said that, as usual, the 9th Circuit was on crack. I didn't say it was much ado about anything. I explained what the opinion said, and did so correctly. The opinion says exactly what I said it says, and the examples I gave are perfectly accurate. You don't know what you're talking about. You are obviously the victim of an inflated sense of self-importance, and apparently of a guilty conscience as well. Let me guess: they don't pull pranks on you at work, but only because you make a perfect ass of yourself without the assistance of others. |
(Sigh)..probable cause has always been the standard by which an officer's actions are judged, as well as good faith effort. It's not my fault you want to read more into it than what it is, and I don't have time for sophmoric arguments and name calling-I'm a busy adult. |
|
Look at it this way: It all starts with probable cause -- that's the 4th Amendment standard. If you are weaving across the centerline, I've got probable cause. If NCIC has a warrant on you -- whether it is no longer valid or not -- I have probable cause. Everything after that is fair game. If I can't articulate probable cause or if I "faked it", then any evidence that I obtain as the result of that stop/arrest (and there may be some differences here) is subject to the Exclusionary Rule (fruit of the poisonous tree). Even then, it doesn't mean that you go "scott free." It just means that the evidence that I obtained can't come in through my stop. It could come in other ways...just not through my testimony. |
Nobody's reading anything into it. You are letting your hysteria cause you to read things into posts, apparently without reading the opinion under discussion. What you say about PC is true but irrelevant to the opinion you're lecturing people about. The question wasn't whether the officers had PC. It was established that they had PC for Impersonation (for which they did not make an arrest) but not for Illegal Interception (for which they did make an arrest). The question before the SCt was whether the existence of PC for an unarticulated offense made the arrest lawful despite the lack of PC for the offense on which the suspect was booked. The Court said it did. If I am wrong, demonstrate it. |
I may be wrong but I think that y'all are getting "probable cause to stop" confused with "probable cause to arrest." Two different things, eh? |
Don't make idiotic statements. READ the ACTUAL decision!!! a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13dec20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-710.pdf |
I wish you could sell that one to our DA. |
Sounds like your DA is an idiot. |
<snip> "A predictable consequence ... is not ... that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated[/bue], but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest," Scalia wrote What isn't clear here? Bold: He predicts officers will continue making sham arrests. & Red: They don't have to tell you what you are being arrested for. So if what they arrested you for is no good, they have a chance to find something else before you get out of jail on the bogus arrest. A Free Mans post is technicaly a valid responce to the ruling. Abuse will occurre and everybody here knows it. And above I read, arrested booked and released and charges never pressed. Frankly If you are booked then released then your prints and SID records should be purged since the lack of being charged equates the arrest was deemed invalid. But once you get a SID it's permanent.. |
Yes, it would be nice for the officers to know what they are doing. However, the police aren't the once that prosecute criminal law violations, it's the DA's Office. They also have methods for "officially" notifying the defendant of the charges against them, the elements of those crimes etc. Since the police can't truly decide which charges are to be prosecuted, they can't answer the "what am I being charged with question" since they don't charge. |
|
The real issue isn't "sham" arrests (though that's what Scalia called them); it's that there are always going to be situations where a policeman knows that somebody has committed a crime but can't quite figure out which paragraph out of 2000 pages of criminal statutes applies. It isn't uncommon for the answer to "What are you arresting me for?" to be "Because you're an asshole." That isn't a sham arrest. What it means is that when the cop has a minute to think, look at a statute book, and maybe talk to somebody, he'll sort out exactly what laws he thinks you broke and what to write on the arrest docket. It happens all the time and there's nothing wrong with it, as long as you have actually broken some law. That was the situation here, apparently. The guy was running around pretending to be a cop. The officers knew he had broken some law, but weren't quite sure which one. When it came time to fill out the paperwork, they guessed wrong. No problem, because he had actually committed acts giving rise to PC for an arrest, though not for the specified crime. The ruling means that when determining the lawfulness of an arrest, the courts are to look at the objective facts known to the officer at the time of arrest. If there was PC for some crime, even if the cops wrote down a different one, the arrest is lawful. |
One of my co-workers arrested a guy for taking liberties with livestock. The guy started asking what the charge was................ the officer replies what you were doing was just wrong, that is what you are getting arrested for................. |
[prosecutor hat] Hmmmm. . . Trespass to Chattel (assuming it weren't his sheep); Grand Theft (in Fla, theft is "obtaining or using the property of another with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of the property of the use of the property or to appropriate it to your own use; theft of cattle is Grand Theft); Trespass (to the field or barn); Exposure of Sexual Organs; Pernicious Mopery; Aggravated Hibachery; Loitering with Intent to Mope and Creep.[/prosecutor hat] OK, the last 3 are fictitious. |
Quite frankly, I have no idea what to make of this. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen people arrested and when asked why the cop simply say, "I'll think of something.". In my experience, they usually do. I'm surprized if anything it made it so far up the system. 
|
I understand why that's disturbing on its face, but the reality is that it is often true that a person has clearly committed a crime, but the cop (being human) doesn't know exactly what it is. Example: drunk guy is lying across a sidewalk drinking a beer, won't move when asked. Some of the choices locally are Impeding passageway (municipal ordinance) Breach of the peace (quiet enjoyment of public spaces) Curb drinking (State statute) Alcohol on city property (municipal) Resisting without violence (state) Resisting or Opposing (municipal) Public intoxication (state) Disorderly conduct (state) There's 8 off the top of my head, and there's probably at least as many more if I put my mind to it - and maybe a hundred more if all the facts are known. Should the officer write the poor mope up for everything in the book, or should he say "I'll think of something" and pick a reasonable number of reasonable charges? |