{"id":1213,"date":"2008-02-03T13:13:36","date_gmt":"2007-08-02T15:44:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-02T15:44:25","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1213","title":{"rendered":"With probable cause, arrest can occur, and the officer does not have to correctly articulate the crime"},"content":{"rendered":"

Store security videotape showed the length of the detention. Gun found was admissible. United States v. Williams<\/a>, 495 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n

But Williams’s argument here is foreclosed by Devenpeck v. Alford<\/em>, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S. Ct. 588, 160 L. Ed. 2d 537 (2004). In Alford<\/em>, a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 turned on whether the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest Alford<\/em>. The Ninth Circuit had reversed judgment in favor of the officers, rejecting the officers’ claims that even though they incorrectly cited one crime as the grounds for arrest, they actually already had independent probable cause to arrest Alford<\/em> for other crimes. Id.<\/em> at 151-52. Like here, in Alford<\/em> the other crimes were never charged. Id.<\/em> at 150-51. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that as long as the officers had probable cause to arrest Alford, it was irrelevant that they had eventually charged him with different crimes. The Court held that its Fourth Amendment precedents: <\/p>\n

make clear that an arresting officer’s state of mind (except for the facts that he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. That is to say, his subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause. As we have repeatedly explained, the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id.<\/em> at 153 (internal citations and quotations omitted). <\/p>\n

Such is the case here. Once the officers knew that they had retrieved a stolen gun from Williams’s car, they had probable cause to arrest him. Once they had that probable cause, it is irrelevant that their investigation eventually found evidence of other crimes, that he was originally charged with those other crimes, or that those crimes were charged based on an investigation that dragged out longer than was warranted by their original reasonable suspicion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The affidavit for the search warrant showed probable cause as a matter of law as to one defendant but not another. The District Court erred in granting summary judgment on qualified immunity as to the other because it was factbound. Walczyk v. Rio<\/a>, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n

“Perez gets nowhere with his argument that his girlfriend, Bobbi Compton, lacked actual and apparent authority to authorize a search of the Grand Am. Compton was the legal owner of the car and had the keys to it. Although Perez may have used the car more frequently than Compton did, Compton drove the car from time to time. By leaving his duffel bag inside the Grand Am, Perez assumed the risk that Compton would consent to a search of the car and its contents. See Matlock<\/em>, 415 U.S. at 172 n.7 ….” United States v. Perez<\/a>, 246 Fed. Appx. 140 (3d Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}