# Alford v. Haner

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 25, 2006 · 446 F.3d 935

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817544

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Anthony ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joi HANER, a Washington State Patrol Officer; Jane Doe Haner, His Wife; Gerald Devenpeck, Sgt., Washington State Patrol; Jane Doe Devenpeck, His Wife, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 25, 2006
- **Citations:** 446 F.3d 935; 2006 WL 1084346
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Fletcher
- **Judges:** Browning, Fletcher, Gould
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Harrell v. City & County of Honolulu, 283 F. App'x 509 (2008).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817544

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, on remand from Deven- peck, that probable cause existed because there was “suffi- cient evidence in the record to support a finding of objective probable cause to arrest Alford for the misdemeanor offense of criminal impersonation in the second degree”
- holding, on remand from Devenpeck, that probable cause existed because there was “sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of objective probable cause to arrest Alford for the misdemeanor offense of criminal impersonation in the second degree”
- recognizing that a new trial should be granted if the record contains no evidence to support the verdict

## Opinion text

B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Our prior order remanding to the district court because the issue of probable cause for impersonating an officer was not before the jury, was correct. Any evidence of other conduct by Alford was presented only in the context of whether he had the requisite intent under the Privacy Act. The instructions to the jury were in the context of violation of the Privacy Act. The jury was not asked to consider other possible crimes for which Alford could have been arrested.
The arguments of both counsel focused on the Privacy Act and witness-credibility. Neither suggested that the jury was to decide whether there was probable cause to arrest for impersonating a police officer. Granting the government’s Petition for Rehearing and affirming the acquittal is inconsistent with the testimony, the jury instructions, and counsels’ arguments all of which indicate that the jury was not presented with the theory that the officers may have probable cause to arrest for an offense other than Privacy Act violations. The remand to the district court, leaving those proceedings open on the issue of qualified immunity, is appropriate. We should deny the government’s Petition for Rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817544. Public record. Not legal advice.