General Overview
When we are looking at the reasonableness of an officer’s action under the Fourth Amendment, what the officer was really thinking is actually not the test. Rather, we need to determine whether the facts and circumstances known to him or her make the search or seizure reasonable.
Devenpeck v. Alford
The best way to illustrate this concept is through a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Devenpeck v. Alford. In that case, the officer was investigating the defendant for impersonating a police officer. During the contact, officers discovered the defendant had made some false statements. In addition, the officer noticed the defendant was recording the contact with officers. At that point, the officer arrested the defendant for one crime and one crime only – illegally taping their conversation. The only problem was that the defendant’s recording the conversation was completely legal. The 9th Circuit ruled that the arrest was a violation of the 4th Amendment. However, the Supreme Court held that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for impersonating a police officer and obstructing an officer, therefore there was no Fourth Amendment violation. That is, the arrest was reasonable because there was an objective reason for the arrest based on the facts known to the officer. The fact that the officer arrested the defendant for a nonexistent crime in the officer’s internal (subjective) state of mind did not invalidate the reasonable (objective) basis for the arrest.
Legal Supplement
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004),
Our cases 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.
Subjective intent of the arresting officer, however it is determined (and of course subjective intent is always determined by objective means), is simply no basis for invalidating an arrest.
Whren v. U.S. 517 U.S. 806 (1996),
[T]he 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. See also Scott v. U.S., 436 U.S. 128, 138 (1978).
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990),
[E]venhanded law enforcement is best achieved by the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than standards that depend upon the subjective state of mind of the officer.
