Herring v. United States (2009)

The case of Herring v. United States involved evidence found during a search that was conducted based on a recalled arrest warrant. The Supreme Court decision in this case was based on the precedent of two prior cases, Arizona v. Evans and United States v. Leon. In Arizona v. Evans the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply due to errors made by people such as court clerks. The decision in United States v. Leon created the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which stated that the exclusionary rule does not apply when officers were acting in “good faith,” or if they believed what they were doing to be legal. In Herring, the Supreme Court took into account the precedent set by these two cases.

In Herring v. United States Bennie Herring went to the Sheriff’s department to retrieve items from his impounded truck. An investigator there asked the warrant clerk for Coffee County to check if Herring had any warrants for his arrest. After not finding any, the investigator asked the clerk to contact the warrant clerk for Dale County to see if he had any there. The warrant clerk found one outstanding warrant, and the warrant clerk for Coffee County asked her to fax it over. However upon trying to do so, the clerk found no warrant in his file and that the warrant had in fact been recalled, but the database never updated. During this time, about 15 minutes, two officers detained and arrested Herring as he exited the impoundment lot. Upon a search incident to arrest the officers found methamphetamine in Herring’s pocket as well as a pistol under his seat. Herring appealed on the basis that the arrest was not lawful because the warrant was recalled, and he attempted to invoke the exclusionary rule to suppress the evidence found during the search. The legal question brought forth by this case was whether or not using evidence in court found during a search conducted incident to an arrest based on a recalled warrant that was believed to be valid violate the fourth amendment rights of a defendant?

The Supreme Court ruled that no, this evidence could be introduced because the warrant clerks made the mistake, not the police officers. Because the unlawful search was an isolated incident and not a result of systematic negligence of police officers, the exclusionary rule was not applicable due to the good faith exception. Because the police officers conducted the search under good faith, believing that the warrant was current, the evidence found was not admissible.

I agree with the Court’s decision. I do not think that the officers in this case operated with undue force or overstepped any boundaries that could have resulted in a violation of the fourth amendment rights of the defendant. However I do agree with Justice Breyer’s point in his dissent that the Court should draw a line between errors made by officers and those made by clerks rather than assessing police culpability when deciding whether or not the exclusionary rule should be applied.

3 Responses to "Herring v. United States (2009)"

Gabrielle Masson says:

March 26, 2017 at 10:02 pm

I agree with Julia that the Court made the right decision in ruling that the evidence was allowed to be used against Herring in court. I think that this is a very important distinction to make in the good faith exception in that the justices, appellants, and attorneys have to look at who specifically made the legal mistake in the process. I personally think the good faith exception is very reasonable because so many cases that have become important precedent involve the restriction of police discretion in criminal justice processes. The good faith exception, however, forces the Court to look at the intentions of the arresting officers or other actors, while taking into account the specific circumstances and the knowledge that each party was presumed to have at the time regarding the legal process.

I am a big proponent of the rights of the accused, especially now that there has been such a rise in police brutality and racial profiling. With that being said, I genuinely believe that police officers want to do their job within the limits of the law and do not have the intention of getting every suspicious looking person or poorly behaved teenager off of the streets, which is why the good faith exception protects them in understanding that in every process or area, there is room for mistakes. In the area of criminal justice, that room is magnified especially when we are dealing with evidence, testimonies, or unreliable witnesses. I think that this case, and others relating to the good faith exception, represents a situation where the officers were under pressure to do their job accurately and efficiently and this small mistake made by the court clerk led to the question of constitutionality in the search and arrest. Going off of that, I believe that the good faith exception is a much better alternative than the excuse of having reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk because this deals with the actual procedure and, for the most part, is not influenced by the arresting officers’ own personal biases.
1. Sarah Sandlin says:
  
  March 27, 2017 at 2:46 pm
  
  Gabrielle suggests that the “good faith exception… is not influenced by the arresting officers’ own personal biases.” However, I would argue the opposite.
  
  Police bias subjected Herring to discrimination, I can’t help but be sympathetic to his plight. On July 7, 2004, Herring thought he was going to get some possessions from his impounded truck. The nature of the task was simple. His motive was innocent enough. He didn’t have reason to expect that he would be patted down. However, based on his past behavior, police made false assumptions about him, which resulted in his search and seizure. I would like to underscore the importance of the assumptions the police made. Had these assumptions not been made, things would have gone in the way that Herring had expected them to. Herring would have likely walked away from the impound lot with the possessions he sought to gather. End of story. However, his reputation evoked suspicion, which in turn, led to an arrest based on something Herring had likely already experienced some degree of retribution for (although I’m not sure the exact reason the warrant was cancelled in the first place).
  
  Herring’s criminal history is unrelated to the task he was doing (picking up possessions from his impounded car). However, police bias led to a series of events that deprived this individual of freedom. This seems unfair to me. I would say this borders on discrimination. It is unjust for Herring to be denied constitutional protections on the basis of police bias. My stance aligns most closely with Ginsburg. The exclusionary rule should have been applied. To expand on his dissent, I think that negligence perpetuated police bias in this circumstance. This makes application of exclusionary rule doubly relevant to this case.
Megan Healy says:

March 27, 2017 at 11:43 am

I also agree with the Court’s decision to use the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in this case. Ellie brought up an important point regarding protecting the rights of the accused. There should be a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and keeping society safe. The Court recognized the fact that it was the Dale County clerk’s office who made the mistake. However, it was too late because Herring was found with methamphetamine and a firearm in his vehicle.

In the majority opinion Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system, we conclude that when police make mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not “pay its way.”” This excerpt means that the court did not think that police meant to make the mistake in order to try to conduct a search that would have otherwise been illegal. The Coffee County Sheriff’s Department didn’t intentionally go to conduct the search and arrest while knowing that it was an outstanding warrant.

The good-faith exception is used by the Court as an exception to the exclusionary rule. I think that Chief Justice Roberts helped to specify exactly when and how this exception can be applied in cases. I agree with the majority in the case of Herring v. US.

Comments are closed.