State v. McElrath
569 S.W.3d 565 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply when an unconstitutional arrest is based on erroneous information resulting from systemic and long-standing negligence in a police department's own record-keeping system, as such conduct is sufficiently culpable to warrant the rule's deterrent effect.
Facts:
- On October 19, 2007, Jerome Antonio McElrath was placed on a list of individuals barred from Union City Housing Authority property due to illegal drug offenses.
- McElrath successfully completed the procedure to have his name removed, and his request was officially approved and effective as of August 16, 2010.
- The Union City Police Department, which created and maintained the records, added McElrath's name to a list of 'unbarred' individuals but negligently failed to remove his name from the active 'barred' list, resulting in his name appearing on both.
- This clerical error remained uncorrected in the police department's records for nearly five years.
- On April 8, 2015, Union City Police Officer Chris Cummings saw McElrath on housing authority property and radioed dispatch, which checked the 'barred' list and erroneously confirmed McElrath was barred.
- Based on this incorrect information, Officer Cummings arrested McElrath for criminal trespass and discovered marijuana during a search incident to the arrest.
- On April 27, 2015, Officer Cummings again saw McElrath on the property, arrested him for criminal trespass based on the same erroneous list, and again found marijuana in a subsequent search.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerome Antonio McElrath was charged by separate indictments with simple possession of marijuana.
- In the trial court, McElrath filed motions to suppress the evidence in both cases.
- The trial court consolidated the cases, held a suppression hearing, and granted McElrath's motions, ruling that Tennessee had not adopted the federal good-faith exception.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's suppression of the evidence.
- The State, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which is the court of review for this brief.
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 good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule permit the introduction of evidence seized during an arrest that was based on a police department's erroneous record, where the error resulted from a systemic and long-standing clerical failure within that same department?
Opinions:
Majority - Roger A. Page, J.
No, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not permit the introduction of the evidence under these circumstances. While Tennessee adopts the good-faith exception from Herring v. United States for isolated, non-recurring police negligence, the error here was not isolated. The police department's record-keeping—maintaining separate 'barred' and 'unbarred' lists without a reconciliation process—was an inherently flawed system. This systemic negligence persisted for nearly five years and was only corrected after McElrath's two unlawful arrests, rising to a level of culpability that triggers the exclusionary rule's deterrent purpose. The police department's conduct amounts to the kind of 'systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements' that Herring cautioned against. Under the collective knowledge doctrine, the entire department is charged with the knowledge of its own records, including the information that should have exonerated McElrath.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Holly Kirby, J.
Yes, the good-faith exception should permit the introduction of the evidence. While the adoption of the Herring good-faith exception is correct, the majority misapplies it to these facts, which are indistinguishable from those in Herring. Both cases involved internally inconsistent record-keeping systems that amounted to mere negligence, not systemic or reckless error. The police lieutenant's unrebutted testimony that the list was '99 percent' correct demonstrates the error was an 'isolated oversight.' The five-year period the error existed does not prove systemic failure but rather underscores its isolated nature. The majority's analysis is inconsistent with Herring and will create confusion for lower courts about how to apply the good-faith exception.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sharon G. Lee, J.
No, the good-faith exception does not apply, and Tennessee should not have adopted an exception for negligent police recordkeeping in the first place. I concur with the majority's result to suppress the evidence because the police department's recordkeeping was systemically flawed. However, I dissent from the adoption of the Herring exception, which erodes constitutional guarantees against illegal searches and seizures. As the Herring dissent argued, negligent recordkeeping threatens individual liberty and is susceptible to deterrence by the exclusionary rule. A citizen's constitutional rights should not be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and courts should not excuse constitutional violations resulting from police carelessness.
Analysis:
This case marks Tennessee's formal adoption of the Herring v. United States good-faith exception, but its significance lies in the immediate limitation the court places on it. The court creates a clear distinction between 'isolated' negligence, which is excused, and 'systemic' negligence in record-keeping, which is not. This holding establishes a precedent requiring lower courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into the culpability behind a police error, rather than just its existence. The decision signals that police departments cannot claim good faith to excuse errors stemming from inherently flawed systems or a reckless disregard for maintaining accurate records, thereby narrowing the exception's applicability in Tennessee.
Unlock the full brief for State v. McElrath