Case brief Herring v. United States PDF

Preview

Summary

Herring v. United States...

Description

Criminal Procedure Fall 2020 Herring v. United States (pg. 365 in Dressler) Facts: A police investigator asked the Coffee County’s warrant clerk if there were any warrants out for Herring’s (defendant) arrest. When none were found, the investigator asked the clerk to check with the clerk in Dale County, who reported that there was one active arrest warrant. The investigator asked that a copy of the arrest warrant be faxed over as confirmation. However, when the Dale County clerk looked for the actual warrant she could not find it and discovered that the warrant had been recalled. She immediately called to tell the Coffee County clerk, who radioed to tell the investigator. However, while all this only took 10 to 15 minutes to transpire, the investigator had already pulled Herring over, arrested him and, after conducting a search of his car, found drugs and a gun. Herring was charged with illegally possessing drugs and a gun. He moved to have the drugs and the gun suppressed at trial because there was in fact no warrant for his arrest and thus his initial arrest had been unlawful. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the investigator acted in good faith, and therefore, the exclusionary rule would not serve to deter future police misconduct. The court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Issue: Where police personnel act negligently and make an administrative error that leads an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, is evidence obtained pursuant to the unlawful arrest admissible at trial? Rule: Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible. Analysis & Holding: Yes. If police reasonably believe that an arrest warrant exists but one in fact does not exist, the evidence acquired pursuant to the unlawful arrest is admissible if the faulty information is the result of police negligence and not deliberate police action. The exclusionary rule was created by the judiciary as a means of deterring illegal police conduct. Past cases demonstrate that when the police deliberately deny a subject his Fourth Amendment rights, the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule outweighs the cost to society and any evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial. In contrast, when the illegal police conduct

is done in good faith, the exclusionary rule does not apply because there is no unlawful police conduct that needs to be deterred. In this case, the Coffee County officers behaved properly, even going so far as to request confirmation of the outstanding arrest warrant. While it is clear that a Dale County officer made a mistake since the warrant’s recall was never properly recorded, this error was made negligently and not deliberately or recklessly. In addition, there is no indication that such errors are systemic or widespread. Therefore, the drug and gun evidence is admissible and the judgment is affirmed. Dissent (Ginsburg): The drug and gun evidence should be excluded. The Court’s opinion holds that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule is minimal in cases where the police act negligently. However, this is not in fact the case. Tort law is premised around the belief that liability for negligence creates an incentive to act with greater care. Electronic recordkeeping has become the norm in the United States, and police departments need an incentive to maintain accurate records. In addition, while the exclusionary rule serves to deter illegal police conduct, it is also often the only remedy available to citizens who have had their Fourth Amendment rights violated....