Arizona v. Evans
514 U.S. 1 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment where the erroneous information leading to the arrest resulted from a clerical error by a court employee, and the arresting officer acted in objectively reasonable reliance on that information.
Facts:
- In January 1991, Phoenix police officer Bryan Sargent stopped Isaac Evans for driving the wrong way on a one-way street.
- Evans informed the officer that his driver's license had been suspended.
- Officer Sargent entered Evans' name into his patrol car's computer terminal, which indicated Evans' license was suspended and that there was an outstanding misdemeanor arrest warrant for him.
- Based on the computer record of the warrant, Officer Sargent arrested Evans.
- While being handcuffed, Evans dropped a hand-rolled cigarette that smelled of marijuana.
- A subsequent search of Evans' car revealed a bag of marijuana.
- It was later discovered that a Justice of the Peace had quashed the arrest warrant 17 days prior to Evans' arrest.
- An error by a court clerk resulted in the failure to update the computer system and remove the quashed warrant from the police records.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Arizona charged Isaac Evans with possession of marijuana in the trial court.
- Evans filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted.
- The State of Arizona appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's suppression order.
- Evans appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence should be suppressed.
- The State of Arizona petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusionary rule require the suppression of evidence seized during an arrest when the arrest was based on an erroneous computer record of an outstanding warrant, and the error was attributable to court personnel?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of this evidence. The rule's purpose is to deter police misconduct, not to punish errors made by court employees. Applying the reasoning of United States v. Leon, the Court found three reasons not to apply the exclusionary rule here: 1) The rule was designed to deter police, not court employees; 2) There is no evidence that court employees are inclined to subvert the Fourth Amendment; and 3) Suppressing evidence would not have a significant deterrent effect on court employees, as they are not 'adjuncts to the law enforcement team' and have no stake in the outcome of criminal prosecutions. The officer's reliance on the computer record was objectively reasonable, and suppressing the evidence would not serve the rule's remedial objectives.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Agreed. The holding is narrow and applies specifically to a court employee's clerical error. The police cannot, however, blindly rely on a recordkeeping system that they know is unreliable or lacks mechanisms to ensure accuracy. If a system routinely leads to false arrests, it would not be reasonable for police to rely on it, and the good-faith exception might not apply.
Concurring - Justice Souter
Agreed. The Court's opinion does not resolve the broader question of whether the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect should apply to the government as a whole, rather than just the police, to ensure that computerized record systems do not lead to an unacceptable number of false arrests.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Fourth Amendment is a constraint on the power of the entire government, not just the police. The exclusionary rule's purpose is to motivate the sovereign to train all its personnel, including court clerks, to avoid constitutional violations. The majority's reliance on Leon is misplaced because this case involved a warrantless arrest, whereas Leon involved a defective warrant. The police department is part of the information chain and is in the best position to monitor and prevent such errors, so the deterrent purpose of the rule would be served by suppression.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. While primarily arguing that the Court should have dismissed the case because the Arizona Supreme Court likely ruled on independent state grounds, the dissent also addresses the merits. In the modern electronic age, court personnel and police officers are not neatly compartmentalized; they work together in the State's information-gathering system. Applying the exclusionary rule would provide a powerful incentive for the State to ensure its computer records are promptly updated and accurate, guarding against the 'potential for Orwellian mischief.'
Analysis:
This decision expands the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon. It carves out a 'categorical exception' for clerical errors made by court employees, distinguishing them from the police. The case signifies the Court's continuing trend of narrowing the exclusionary rule's application by focusing strictly on its utility in deterring police misconduct. The concurring opinions highlight the decision's limits, suggesting that police cannot rely on a system known to be flawed, which leaves open the possibility of future challenges based on systemic negligence in recordkeeping.
Unlock the full brief for Arizona v. Evans