Evidence obtained via improper means or without consent now admissible in court

[0ni0n]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of an Alabama man on drug and weapons charges, emphasizing that the exclusionary rule, which generally bars prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police through improper searches, is far from absolute. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the court upheld the federal conviction of Bennie Dean Herring, who from the court records appears to have been very unlucky as well as felonious in his conduct. In upholding the conviction, the court’s majority came to a conclusion that will most likely please those who complain about criminals going free on “technicalities.”

Mr. Herring had gone to the Coffee County, Ala., sheriff’s department on July 7, 2004, to retrieve something from his truck, which had been impounded. “Herring was no stranger to law enforcement,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. observed dryly in his opinion for the court.

And he was no stranger to Mark Anderson, an investigator for the sheriff’s department, who asked a Coffee County clerk if there were any outstanding warrants for Mr. Herring.

No, Mr. Anderson was told. So he asked the clerk to check with her counterpart in neighboring Dale County, who turned up a warrant against Mr. Herring for failing to appear in court on a felony charge.

Mr. Anderson and a deputy following Mr. Herring as he left the impound lot pulled him over and arrested him. A search turned up methamphetamine in his pocket and a pistol, which Mr. Herring could not legally possess because of an earlier felony conviction, in his truck.

Within minutes, however, the Dale County clerk discovered that the warrant against Mr. Herring had been withdrawn five months earlier and had been left in the computer system by mistake. The clerk immediately called Mr. Anderson, but Mr. Herring had already been taken into custody.

Was Mr. Herring entitled to go free because the officers lacked probable cause and there was no dispute that both the arrest and subsequent search were unconstitutional? No, the Supreme Court ruled.

“When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Deciding when to throw out evidence under the exclusionary rule is a balancing act, the majority said. Is the official misconduct serious enough that the evidence should be disallowed to deter future misconduct, even if criminals sometimes go free?
Not in Mr. Herring’s case, the majority ruled, upholding findings by a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. “In my view, the court’s opinion underestimates the need for a forceful exclusionary rule and the gravity of recordkeeping errors in the law enforcement,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

Even cops search your car or home without consents, you will still be guilty for any incriminating evidence that they happen to discover. It's a miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedence for aggressive enforcement by overzealous cops.

Share your opinions.

[Mizango]

Holy cow......

[Athas]

I've always been of the opinion that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

[archibaldcrane]

Even cops search your car or home without consents, you will still be guilty for any incriminating evidence that they happen to discover.

If this is your synopsis of the entirety of the limits of the exclusionary rule, then you clearly didn't read the article you posted.

I'd say this is about where I want my legal system to be. Clearly this guy is both stupid and unlucky, but a 5-4 for or 4-5 against court decision is about what I'd expect. The cop who pulled him over and searched him was acting in a good faith effort that he was entirely on the correct side of the law based on the information he had gathered, it's just that that information turned out to be faulty beyond his particular control.

Actually, I'd prefer it be 4-5 and have this guy get off, but yeah.

[pohibaba]

Every day we get closer and closer to full fledged tyranny.

[archibaldcrane]

I've always been of the opinion that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

Lol.

Everyone has something to hide, that's why we set up limits on our police state.

[0ni0n]

If this is your synopsis of the entirety of the limits of the exclusionary rule, then you clearly didn't read the article you posted.

I'd say this is about where I want my legal system to be. Clearly this guy is both stupid and unlucky, but a 5-4 for or 4-5 against court decision is about what I'd expect. The cop who pulled him over and searched him was acting in a good faith effort that he was entirely on the correct side of the law based on the information he had gathered, it's just that that information turned out to be faulty beyond his particular control.

Actually, I'd prefer it be 4-5 and have this guy get off, but yeah.

No, it's not a summary. But it's a slippery slope that it will encourage cops to violate people's civic rights.

I've always been of the opinion that if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

Sarcastic, or are you posting from USSR or North Korea?

[archibaldcrane]

Every day we get closer and closer to full fledged tyranny.

Meh, don't slippery slope this. There's no conspiracy in this case, this guy was not "set up".

Although it's kinda fucked up, it's in some ways similar to a situation in which a search warrant is executed for the wrong address, and then they bring up the homeowner at the wrong address on charges for whatever they find there.

If a case like that can get struck down because the warrant was later found to be invalid even as an honest mistake, I don't see why this guy doesn't get off because of a similar honest mistake.

[archibaldcrane]

No, it's not a summary. But it's a slippery slope that it will encourage cops to violate people's civic rights.

Without a conspiracy, I doubt it. The cop was making a good faith effort to execute the search properly - he had NO reason to believe that the search wasn't legal, which is the crux of the case. Obviously if the cop knew that the arrest warrant on this guy wasn't real when he conducted the search, the evidence would have been excluded.

[pohibaba]

I agree with you in this situation; this guy probably deserves to spend some time in jail. That's not what I'm concerned about. This decision by the Court will certainly be applied in situations that are much less cut and dry. This decision will absolutely lead to people having their civil liberties infringed upon. Even if it's only in one case, that's still entirely unacceptable.

[archibaldcrane]

This decision by the Court will certainly be applied in situations that are much less cut and dry.

“When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply,”

Yeah, the wording in there definitely does leave some wiggle room. It sounds like it would apply to my above-posted search warrant for the wrong address situation...

Bleh.

[0ni0n]

Without a conspiracy, I doubt it. The cop was making a good faith effort to execute the search properly - he had NO reason to believe that the search wasn't legal, which is the crux of the case. Obviously if the cop knew that the arrest warrant on this guy wasn't real when he conducted the search, the evidence would have been excluded.

I really hope this is an isolated case and be the end of it. But I won't be surprised that we will have more "mistake warrants" which lead to unlawful searches by overzealous prosecutors who are hoping to find anything incriminating.

[Gregorio]

No, it's not a summary. But it's a slippery slope that it will encourage cops to violate people's civic rights.

Misleading title is bad.

We already have the "good faith" exception in the books. For example, if an officer mistakingly writes the wrong address, date, time, spelling of a name, etc. on a warrant and finds damning evidence against a person it can still be used in a court. This seems close to a good faith exception in my opinion...the officer acted in good faith under his belief that the man had a warrant out for his arrest and obtained evidence that should be admissable in court.

[Plow]

slippery slope blah blah, it's awfully dangerous to set up a situation where the cops can just say "Oh, sorry, someone fucked up the paperwork, that means it was ok for us to come in here."

Bet the decision would've been different if someone had gotten shot in the process or some shit.

[Gregorio]

I really hope this is an isolated case and be the end of it. But I won't be surprised that we will have more "mistake warrants" which lead to unlawful searches by overzealous prosecutors who are hoping to find anything incriminating.

The good faith exception has been on the books for years.

[0ni0n]

The good faith exception has been on the books for years.

Fair enough, paranoia on my part.

[Olo401]

This is a tricky case.. but I agree with the decision. Let's face it - the guy did himself in by going there in the first place. The police in the other county where the truck was impounded didn't make a mistake here. He was under arrest with cause (even if it was a clerical error) and at that point, the police had probable cause to search his person and his vehicle.

Had this case been in the same county where he was previously convicted, I'd say that the exclusionary rule should apply since they're the ones who actually fucked up by not marking the old charges as withdrawn in the computer.

[Correction]

What kind of stupid motherfucker shows up at an impound lot with a gun and meth in his pockets?

[Elvis]

What kind of stupid motherfucker shows up at an impound lot with a gun and meth in his pockets?

Someone who likes to partaaaaaay!

[archibaldcrane]

What kind of stupid motherfucker shows up at an impound lot with a gun and meth in his pockets?

Does it really matter what kind?