Case title: Herring v. United States
Citation: 555 U.S. 135
Year decided: 2009
Facts:
Bennie Dean Herring was arrested on July 7, 2004 after he went down to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department to obtain items from his truck which was impounded. Investigator Mark Anderson became suspicious of Herring and began to inquire about his past. He had Sandy Pope, the county’s warrant clerk, to run Herring’s name in the system to see if he had any active warrants for his arrest. After running Herring’s name in the Coffee County’s database, she found nothing. Anderson then had Pope to call Sharon Morgan at the Dale County Sheriff’s Department to see if Herring had any outstanding warrants there. Shortly after checking, Morgan confirmed that Herring had a felony charge and an outstanding warrant for his arrest for failure to appear in court. Pope then had Morgan to fax a copy of the warrant over to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department. After Anderson learned of this information, he and another deputy waited for Herring to leave the impound lot so they could follow him (Roberts, C. J., 2008).
They pulled Herring over and arrested him. They pat searched him and found methamphetamine in his pocket and after searching his car a gun was discovered. Herring was a felon, and having a gun was illegal. Approximately 10 to 15 mins after Herring was arrested, Morgan realized that there had been error in the Dale County Sheriff’s records system. The information in the system did not match the records they had on file. Morgan discovered this error when she went to obtain the file to fax over to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department. The warrant had been evoked five months earlier and the proper procedure to notify Morgan was not followed. Therefore, the recall of the warrant for Herring’s arrest was not put into the system. Morgan informed Pope that the warrant was recalled and that there had been a mix up. Pope then informed Anderson over the radio but Herring had already been arrested. The District Court for the Middle District of Alabama indicted Herring for the illegal possession of drugs and a firearm. These were violations of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1) and 21 U. S. C. §844(a). Herring moved to overturn the evidence by the prosecution being that his arrest was illegal due to his warrant being recalled. But, the Magistrate Judge suggested that this motion be denied. He felt that Anderson acted in good-faith, believing the warrant was active. Issue or issues: Should the error of the Dale County Sheriff’s Department, which led to a false arrest, justify the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule? …show more content…
If the error or mistake was made the law enforcement officer, then it must be honest and reasonable. There are seven court cases stated in chapter 4 of the required text “Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice,” that shows the good-faith to the exclusionary rule. For example, the court case Massachusetts v. Shappard, 468 U.S. 981(1984) the error was made by the judge, not by law enforcement officers. But, in the case of Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) law enforcement officers honestly and reasonably believed that they gave the correct information to the magistrate when they were trying to obtain a warrant (Del Carmen,
Citation: 555 U.S. 135
Year decided: 2009
Facts:
Bennie Dean Herring was arrested on July 7, 2004 after he went down to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department to obtain items from his truck which was impounded. Investigator Mark Anderson became suspicious of Herring and began to inquire about his past. He had Sandy Pope, the county’s warrant clerk, to run Herring’s name in the system to see if he had any active warrants for his arrest. After running Herring’s name in the Coffee County’s database, she found nothing. Anderson then had Pope to call Sharon Morgan at the Dale County Sheriff’s Department to see if Herring had any outstanding warrants there. Shortly after checking, Morgan confirmed that Herring had a felony charge and an outstanding warrant for his arrest for failure to appear in court. Pope then had Morgan to fax a copy of the warrant over to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department. After Anderson learned of this information, he and another deputy waited for Herring to leave the impound lot so they could follow him (Roberts, C. J., 2008).
They pulled Herring over and arrested him. They pat searched him and found methamphetamine in his pocket and after searching his car a gun was discovered. Herring was a felon, and having a gun was illegal. Approximately 10 to 15 mins after Herring was arrested, Morgan realized that there had been error in the Dale County Sheriff’s records system. The information in the system did not match the records they had on file. Morgan discovered this error when she went to obtain the file to fax over to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department. The warrant had been evoked five months earlier and the proper procedure to notify Morgan was not followed. Therefore, the recall of the warrant for Herring’s arrest was not put into the system. Morgan informed Pope that the warrant was recalled and that there had been a mix up. Pope then informed Anderson over the radio but Herring had already been arrested. The District Court for the Middle District of Alabama indicted Herring for the illegal possession of drugs and a firearm. These were violations of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1) and 21 U. S. C. §844(a). Herring moved to overturn the evidence by the prosecution being that his arrest was illegal due to his warrant being recalled. But, the Magistrate Judge suggested that this motion be denied. He felt that Anderson acted in good-faith, believing the warrant was active. Issue or issues: Should the error of the Dale County Sheriff’s Department, which led to a false arrest, justify the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule? …show more content…
If the error or mistake was made the law enforcement officer, then it must be honest and reasonable. There are seven court cases stated in chapter 4 of the required text “Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice,” that shows the good-faith to the exclusionary rule. For example, the court case Massachusetts v. Shappard, 468 U.S. 981(1984) the error was made by the judge, not by law enforcement officers. But, in the case of Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) law enforcement officers honestly and reasonably believed that they gave the correct information to the magistrate when they were trying to obtain a warrant (Del Carmen,