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 …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 …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,