October Term 2004 · Docket 03-710
Can police arrest someone for recording a lawful conversation?
Officers arrested a man for recording a police stop. The Ninth Circuit found this violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers argue the arrest was valid.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Hart argued the Ninth Circuit correctly invalidated the arrest. She stated the officers were personally liable for damages.
Mr. Phillips argued the closely related offense doctrine protects constitutional rights. He claimed it prevents arrests for non-criminal conduct.
Mr. Comey argued Fourth Amendment validity requires an objective assessment. He viewed the facts through a specific legal prism.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the closely related offense doctrine. This rule allows arrests for minor, non-criminal acts if they relate to a crime. The Ninth Circuit rejected this rule here. The officers argue the rule protects constitutional rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
What each side wants
The officers want the Ninth Circuit decision overturned. They seek to keep the closely related offense doctrine valid.
Mr. Alford wants the Ninth Circuit decision upheld. He seeks to confirm that recording police is not an arrestable offense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
What each side says
The officers argue the closely related offense doctrine enforces the reasonableness clause. They claim it prevents arrests for non-criminal conduct.
Mr. Alford argues the arrest lacked lawful grounds. He contends recording a police conversation is not a crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked if recording police conversations is lawful in Washington.
Justice O'Connor asked if the arrest was based on the recording act itself.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-10
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police power during traffic stops. It determines whether citizens can record officers without fear of arrest. The outcome shapes the balance between public oversight and law enforcement authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 18-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 18-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-44 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-4 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 12-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 12-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-40 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-10
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 27-34 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 27-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-54
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.