finding that “pretext arrest doctrine” is “no longer viable as a matter of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. . . . As long as an actual violation occurs, law enforcement officials are free to enforce the laws and detain a person for that violation, . . . regardless of the officer’s subjective reasons for the detention.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “pretext arrest doctrine” is “no longer viable as a matter of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. . . . As long as an actual violation occurs, law enforcement officials are free to enforce the laws and detain a person for that violation, . . . regardless of the officer’s subjective reasons for the detention.”
- holding that “appropriate limitation of an officer’s discretion,” for purposes of Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is existence of law and actual commission of offense; officer’s subjective intent is relevant only to credibility determination of stated reasons for stopping or arresting individual
- holding that, “where police officers are objectively doing what they are legally authorized to do . . . the 14 results of their investigations are not to be called in question on the basis of any subjective intent with which they acted”
- holding that even if arresting officer had second subjective reason for stopping vehicle, trial court erred 7 in suppressing evidence because officer had objective reason for arrest when appellant failed to stop at stop sign
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
I would adopt, for purposes of interpreting the Fourth Amendment, the “modified objective test” (page 942) used by the Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Under the facts of this case, the same result would be reached using either test; thus I concur in the result.