Herring V Us Case Study

817 Words 4 Pages
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
…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, …show more content…
Holding:
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. Pp. 4-13. (FindLaw 's, (n.d.)).
Case significance:
This case is important because a simple mistake by the Dale County Sheriff’s Department warrant clerk led to an unlawful arrest which resulted in an unlawful search. But, the evidence seized was admissible in court because the arresting officers acted on good-faith. Non-systemic errors and negligence by law enforcement officers are considered an act of good-faith and do not result in the exclusion of seized evidence.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizes. A warrant or probable cause is required before making an arrest. Yet, Herring was stopped and detained without probable cause or a warrant in hand due to the error and negligence of the Dale County Sheriff’s Department. Although drugs along with a weapon was found, these actions violated his Fourth Amendment

Related Documents