Whether Devenpeck v. Alford, which protects officers who either incompetently or maliciously arrest a person for a crime the arrestee did not commit, should be overruled

QUESTION PRESENTED Justice Ginsburg, recently noted that Devenpeck v. Alford has “set[] the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection,” and it should be revisited. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 1388 S. Ct. 577, 594 (2018) (Ginsburg, J. concurring). Under Devenpeck, a police officer’s reason for a warrantless arrest is irrelevant to determining whether he acted reasonably by effectuating the arrest for the purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But qualified immunity already protects all officers but the malicious and incompetent, and Heck v. Humphrey already protects officers against claims for unlawful arrest when the arrestee was ultimately convicted of the crime for which he was arrested. The question presented is whether Devenpeck, which only protects officers who either incompetently or maliciously arrest a person for a crime the arrestee did not commit, should be overruled.