Alford v. Haner

Ninth Circuit

Alford v. Haner

418 F.3d 1004, 2005 WL 1869214

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Alford v. Haner. Read the opinion of the Court — 333 F.3d 972 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 9, 2005·No. 01-35141·Published

Opinion

ORDER

This case has returned to us on remand from the Supreme Court. See Devenpeck v. Alford, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004), reversing Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2003). In turn, we now remand the case to the district court.

As the Supreme Court has pointed out, we did not, in our original disposition, decide whether the police had probable cause to arrest Alford for obstructing a law enforcement officer or for impersonating a law enforcement officer. See 125 S.Ct. at 595. Our review of the record below reveals that the jury did not have occasion to pass on this question either. In fact, the jury received no instruction on the elements of any offense for which Alford might have been arrested other than a violation of Washington’s Privacy Act.

We therefore REMAND the case to the district court for retrial on the alternate theories indicated by the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case has returned to us on remand from the Supreme Court. See Devenpeck v. Alford, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004), reversing Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2003). In turn, we now remand the case to the district court.

As the Supreme Court has pointed out, we did not, in our original disposition, decide whether the police had probable cause to arrest Alford for obstructing a law enforcement officer or for impersonating a law enforcement officer. See 125 S.Ct. at 595. Our review of the record below reveals that the jury did not have occasion to pass on this question either. In fact, the jury received no instruction on the elements of any offense for which Alford might have been arrested other than a violation of Washington’s Privacy Act.

We therefore REMAND the case to the district court for retrial on the alternate theories indicated by the Supreme Court.

Alford v. Haner, 418 F.3d 1004, 2005 WL 1869214 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

418 F.3d 1004 (Alford v. Haner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related