United states even further restricts the application of the exclusionary rule where errors in government databases form the basis for a search. The others are heirs of the two other, now deceased, widows in the original action. If the court finds for herring and holds that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence found when law enforcement personnel acted in good faith on erroneous information, it could significantly affect the use and. The possibility that application of the exclusionary rule in a situation may deter fourth amendment violations to some extent is not enough. Epic has participated as amicus in several cases concerning the collection of. It enables the judiciary to avoid the taint of partnership in official lawlessness, and it assures the peopleall potential victims of unlawful government conductthat the government would not profit from its lawless behavior. As developed below, the facts of herring are quite similar to the facts of other cases where the court upheld police conduct that, although. Contributor names stewart, potter judge supreme court of the united states author. The supreme court has not extended the exclusionary rule to proceedings. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions for the convenience of.
Here, we hold that, if true, the facts herring alleged in his section 2255. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions for the convenience of the reader. This is a case about whether the police can use evidence they find as a result of a mistaken arrest. Upon searching herrings vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in herrings pocket and a gun under the seat of his truck. Given this philosophy, justice ginsburgs dissent in herring v.
Supreme court of the united states syllabus herring v. States, in particular, in essays in honor of justice ruth bader. Should the exclusionary rule apply to evidence found during a search incident to arrest if the arrest is subsequently invalidated due to a revoked warrant on which the officers reasonably relied in arresting d. United states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. Epic has participated as amicus in several cases concerning the collection of dna. Judge keary issued an amended judgment and commitment order for mr. The court decided that the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdict. Audio transcription for opinion announcement january 14, 2009 in herring v. Herrings postconviction claim 19 on september 17, 1999, herring filed his petition for postconviction relief. Syllabus officers in coffee county arrested petitioner herring based on a warrant listed in neighboring dale countys database. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Concerning a faulty arrest based on incorrect information in a.
The court said that a memorandum opinion would follow. The decision of the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania, dated september 10, 2004, is. The coffee county, alabama sheriffs department apprehended bennie herring in july of 2004. United states case brief united states supreme court 555 u. To view pdf files listed on this page you will need adobe acrobat reader. Earlier this month, the united states supreme court decided herring v. Even when illegally seized evidence is excluded from the governments case in chief, the court has held that the evidence may still be used to impeach a defendants own testimony on direct examina tion, walder v. United states,8 on the surface, a gardenvariety fourth amendment exclusionary rule case, takes on special resonance. August 27, 2019 united states court of appeals for the. Argued october 7, 2008decided january 14, 2009 officers in coffee county arrested petitioner herring based on a war.
United states21 in 1914 and applied the rule to the states in mapp v. An officer learned that the eventual defendant, herring, was at the impound lot. Writing for the panel, judge carnes19 stated that even though the search violated herrings fourth. The court decided that the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a. Roberts, jr i have our opinion this morning in case 075, herring versus united states. The central thesis of this essay is that, consistent with the art of overruling, the court could have limited mapp, for example, by extending the goodfaith reasonable mistake rationale that animates cases like united states v. King, which upheld a similar law in maryland, did not apply in this case because of significant differences between each state s dna collection laws. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the initial search had been made on a faulty arrest warrant. Epic today filed a friend of the court brief pdf in the united states supreme. The court declared, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct.
Jan 26, 2009 earlier this month, the united states supreme court decided herring v. United states will have important consequences for the future of the exclusionary rule. In herring, a police officer, suspicious of the defendant who was seeking to gather something from his im pounded truck, requested a warrant check. The court decided that the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because. Herring was indicted in the united states district court for the middle district of alabama for violations of 18 u. United states on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit january 14, 2009 justice ginsburg, with whom justice stevens, justice souter, and justice breyer join, dissenting. United states epic electronic privacy information center. United states, a 2009 decision, the supreme court for the first time applied the goodfaith exception to bar application of the exclusionary rule in a. An act to provide for intervention by the united states, direct appeals to the supreme court.
Bennie dean herring was arrested after inspector mark anderson of the coffee county, alabama police. United states dates of early supreme court decisions and arguments. Opinions below the decision of the united states court of appeals for the third circuit has been reported at 424 f. Patricia herring is one of the widows who was a party in the original action. Dissent, ginsburg html pdf dissent, breyer html pdf herring v. Chief justices yearend reports on the federal judiciary supreme court of the united states final list as of 81009 order. Where it is feasible, a syllabus headnote will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
Justice ginsburg, with whom justice stevens, justice souter, and justice breyer join, dissenting petitioner bennie dean herring was arrested, and subjected to a search incident to his arrest, although no warrant was outstanding against him, and the police lacked probable cause to believe he was engaged in criminal activity. Given these unique facts, we find it inappropriate to decide the case on the basis that secretary finletter and judge advocate general harmon were not officers of the court. United states surprised no one, the sweep of the supreme courts opinion was breathtaking. Many documents listed on this page are pdf files that may be viewed using adobereader. Extension of the goodfaith exception to the exclusionary rule in fourth amendment cases. Upon searching herring s vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in herring s pocket and a gun under the seat of his truck. Inspire your inbox sign up for daily fun facts about this day in history, updates, and special offers. The substance of their complaint is that the purportedly top secret. If so, we then determine whether the denial of the evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion. Thus, the fourth amendment exclusionary rule,23 generally stated, excludes evidence from criminal trials when that evidence is obtained as a direct result of police con. Shumaker clerk of court united states of america, plaintiff appellee, no.
329 1144 920 1074 458 1446 1443 106 1224 234 32 640 1158 1162 806 20 354 1363 232 1308 787 355 1411 213 27 1470 1331 619 720 373 1346 1078 1111 282 902 925 313 427 199 63 712 81 901