Herring v. United States
555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009)
Rule of Law:
The exclusionary rule does not apply when police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.
Facts:
- Investigator Mark Anderson of the Coffee County Sheriff's Department observed Bennie Dean Herring, with whom he was familiar, at the department's impound lot.
- Anderson asked his county's warrant clerk, Sandy Pope, to check for any outstanding warrants for Herring's arrest.
- Finding none in Coffee County, Pope contacted her counterpart, Sharon Morgan, in neighboring Dale County at Anderson's request.
- Morgan checked the Dale County computer database and informed Pope that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring for failure to appear on a felony charge.
- Relying on this information, Investigator Anderson pulled Herring over and arrested him.
- A search incident to the arrest revealed methamphetamine in Herring's pocket and a pistol in his vehicle.
- Within 10 to 15 minutes, Morgan discovered that the warrant had been recalled five months earlier, but the database had not been updated due to a clerical error.
- Morgan immediately informed Pope of the mistake, but the arrest and search had already been completed.
Procedural Posture:
- Bennie Dean Herring was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for federal gun and drug possession charges.
- Herring filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was the fruit of an unlawful arrest.
- A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, concluding the arresting officers acted in good faith.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation and denied the motion to suppress.
- Herring appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that the evidence was admissible under the good-faith rule.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Herring's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits.
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 apply to evidence seized incident to an arrest when the arrest was based on an officer's objectively reasonable reliance on a police-maintained warrant database that contained a negligent error?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No, the exclusionary rule does not apply in these circumstances. The rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter police misconduct, not an individual right, and its application is justified only where its deterrent benefits outweigh its substantial social costs. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent that exclusion can meaningfully deter it. Where an officer's reliance on a police-maintained database is objectively reasonable, and the constitutional violation is the result of an isolated, negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee, the marginal deterrence of applying the exclusionary rule does not 'pay its way' by outweighing the cost of letting a guilty defendant go free.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the exclusionary rule should apply to this evidence. The majority underestimates the deterrent value of the rule in encouraging police departments to maintain accurate records, a crucial function in an era of expanding electronic databases. The rule serves not only deterrence but also preserves judicial integrity and ensures the Fourth Amendment is a meaningful protection against unlawful government conduct. Negligent record-keeping poses a grave threat to individual liberty, and without the exclusionary rule, individuals like Herring, who are victimized by such errors, are left with no effective remedy. The 'constable's blunder' in this case was not a spontaneous mistake in the field but a systemic failure that went uncorrected for five months, making exclusion an appropriate and necessary sanction.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes, the exclusionary rule should apply. Precedent, specifically Arizona v. Evans, established a critical distinction between errors made by judicial employees and those made by law enforcement personnel. The good-faith exception was premised on the idea that the rule is meant to deter police, not court clerks. This case involves a police record-keeping error, squarely placing it on the side of conduct the exclusionary rule is designed to deter. Adhering to this clear line is far more administrable for courts than the majority's new, case-by-case inquiry into the degree of police culpability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the exclusionary rule by extending the good-faith exception to cover isolated, negligent errors made by police personnel, not just judges or court employees as established in prior cases. It shifts the primary focus of the exclusionary rule analysis from the mere existence of a Fourth Amendment violation to the degree of culpability of the police conduct. The holding establishes a spectrum of culpability, requiring more than simple, isolated negligence to justify the suppression of evidence. This creates a higher burden for defendants seeking suppression, who must now show that a police error was deliberate, reckless, or part of a systemic pattern of negligence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Herring v. United States (2009)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"