http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence

Court says evidence is valid despite police error

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants. The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure. The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges. Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts. In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights." Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented. Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004. The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant. Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring. The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring. Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping. "

This is truly frightening to me. As time passes, more and more of our freedoms are being taken away. Anyone else as disturbed as I am?

1/14/2009 5:29:43 PM

no

i just keep eating fried shit and taking hot showers

1/14/2009 5:33:53 PM

as long as it's not abused then i'm all for this happening - it's been long overdue that something like this was put into place

criminals have been exploiting minute errors for way too long - if there is evidence to support a crime then it shouldn't be excluded because of a dumb cop

1/14/2009 5:33:59 PM

Quote :

"as long as it's not abused then i'm all for this happening"

name me one instance where when given an inch of power law enforcement hasn't taken a mile?

1/14/2009 5:39:15 PM

Quote :

"as long as it's not abused..."

Key qualifier -- b/c you know it will be.

1/14/2009 5:39:31 PM

Watch how cops start making A LOT more "innocent errors".

This is crap.

1/14/2009 5:39:59 PM

i do support this to some degree. it is silly that a criminal can get away scott free just because the police officer filing the report forgot to cross a t (or something stupid like this).
it does scare me that this could be used later on to a much greater degree to convict people.

1/14/2009 5:40:40 PM

Something that could turn out to be quite similar (as a violation of the 4th)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

1/14/2009 5:42:16 PM

This is bullshit.

1/14/2009 5:44:28 PM

"Hey we didn't know we couldn't stop everyone in the Metro and strip search them. So, sorry for being negligent. But, hey, we found a guy who used his phone to place a bet on the Knicks game so we're going to arrest him anyway."

1/14/2009 5:57:13 PM

Quote :

"it is silly that a criminal can get away scott free just because the police officer filing the report forgot to cross a t (or something stupid like this)."

Well, the cops better get it right the first time! But now, they've got less incentive to -- in fact, they have an incentive to fuck up! And they will! On purpose! And they'll get away with it!!!

This is complete shit.

1/14/2009 5:57:30 PM

I'll predict there will be a huge increase in "honest" mistakes by eager police after this ruling.

1/14/2009 6:30:20 PM

Quote :

"get away scott free"

1/14/2009 6:43:15 PM

Wow, Alabama violates people's constitutional rights. I'm not sure this has ever happened before.

1/14/2009 9:53:09 PM

It sucks that the 5 who got this one wrong are the same who got the heller case right.

and the 4 who got this one right, got the heller case wrong.....

1/14/2009 10:04:08 PM

i have no faith in america any more

1/14/2009 10:16:42 PM

it sucks that our Supreme Court is just a bunch of idealoges who continuously vote the "party line" on whatever the issue is, even though they're not supposed to be party-affiliated.

seriously..... it really bothers me that so many very important decisions are made with a single swing-vote. I like the suggestions made by the book A More Perfect Constitution, including:
1) Give the justices term limits, like 15 years. There's really no point in giving them life-time terms, which basically gives them the option of retiring whenever they are comfortable with the current president
2) Increase the size to 12 to:
a) allow a bit more representation. Decisions of 8-4 or even 7-5 feel like a bit more of a mandate than these stupid 5-4 decisioins
b) allow for ties, in which case, the ruling of the lower court will stand. I really like this suggestion - think about it. Supreme Court decision should really only be made if a clear majority of the court agrees on it, because the consequences are so long-lasting. If the court can only come to a 6-6 decision, then maybe that's an indication that whatever they are deciding on just isn't ready for a Supreme Court precedent. In that case, the lower court's ruling stands, and in a few more years or decades, if the case comes up again and the Court makes a majority ruling on it, then that's an indication the country is "ready" for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Constitution
http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/

1/14/2009 10:20:20 PM

Require more than a majority to make the decision. Require a 6-3 to make a decision.

1/14/2009 10:24:49 PM

Quote :

""Hey we didn't know we couldn't stop everyone in the Metro and strip search them. So, sorry for being negligent. But, hey, we found a guy who used his phone to place a bet on the Knicks game so we're going to arrest him anyway.""

Don't be a fucking idiot. And seriously, if you have a problem with random searches when getting on the subway then I hope you're on the train that explodes from a bomb after searches have stopped due to being ruled "unconstitutional

1/15/2009 12:48:04 AM

Quote :

"then I hope you're on the train that explodes from a bomb after searches have stopped due to being ruled "unconstitutional "

Such conservative compassion folks. Jesus would be proud.

1/15/2009 2:52:09 AM

I read this with interest on Volokh's blog and I didn't think the majority was unreasonable. The argument goes that the exclusion principle exists broadly as a disincentive to the state acting badly with regards to the fourth amendment. That is, if the state is negligent in its treatment of fourth amendment rights, then it is "punished" by the exclusion of evidence. And, as such, the Court concluded that in this case the simple mistake was not an example of the state acting negligently and did not deserve "punishment" per the exclusion principle.

The dissent went as expected -- which was that the fourth amendment also is an incentive for extremely accurate record-keeping and therefore most errors are unacceptable and the exclusion principle applies.

Reasonable people can disagree here -- at some point one assumes that an innocent mistake is just that, innocent, and a guilty person is just that, guilty. You may disagree with the overall balancing act presented by the fourth amendment's interpretation to date but that is way out of my depth -- it's Ph.D. thesis land. I can't say I particularly disagreed with what I did read or that I have much more sympathy for the offender who was relying only on the fourth amendment to skirt an actual violation of the law.

1/15/2009 4:12:52 AM

Quote :

"it sucks that our Supreme Court is just a bunch of idealoges who continuously vote the "party line" on whatever the issue is, even though they're not supposed to be party-affiliated."

I think instead of jumping to conclusions you should read the reasoning they used and decide whether or not you agree with it. For starters:

http://volokh.com/posts/1231954580.shtml

More so I don't get the "party line" argument considering how many of the so-called "liberal" justices have been Republican appointees (infamously, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others). You're oversimplifying. But in the context of this particular case (and most, really), isn't it better to have a discussion about the actual issues and what's the right way to rule?

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 4:18 AM. Reason : foo]

1/15/2009 4:16:52 AM

Quote :

"criminals have been exploiting minute errors for way too long - if there is evidence to support a crime then it shouldn't be excluded because of a dumb cop"

Considering the amount power that is entrusted in the police, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to a high standard. If a cop can't get all of the procedures right on the first try, how can I be sure that the person they're arresting and detaining isn't actually innocent? Perhaps if there were severe penalties imposed for wrongful arrests, cops would think really hard about whether or not they want to do it.

It's unfortunate that the truly guilty will manipulate the system to keep themselves out of jail, but that is the price to be paid to prevent the truly innocent from being punished.

1/15/2009 4:53:27 AM

Quote :

"Don't be a fucking idiot. And seriously, if you have a problem with random searches when getting on the subway then I hope you're on the train that explodes from a bomb after searches have stopped due to being ruled "unconstitutional""

Wow.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM. Reason : Nevermind. Not gonna feed the troll who wishes death on me.]

1/15/2009 7:33:40 AM

Quote :

"...the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping."

This is the quote that supprises me. One would think that if suspects get off because of your sloppy record keeping, it would drive you to improve your processes.

1/15/2009 7:35:42 AM

Quote :

" I think instead of jumping to conclusions you should read the reasoning they used and decide whether or not you agree with it. ... More so I don't get the "party line" argument considering how many of the so-called "liberal" justices have been Republican appointees"

i wasn't necessarily talking about this case with the party line comment.
And regardless of who appointed the member, it's clear they are following some sort of line with pairs/groups of them so consistently and predictably vote the same as each other, based on the perceived political ideology in the case.

1/15/2009 9:14:42 AM

Quote :

"as long as it's not abused then i'm all for this happening - it's been long overdue that something like this was put into place "

yeah, really. Those guys that wrote the constitution had NO idea what they were doing...

1/15/2009 9:21:12 AM

i disagree with having a 15 year term. it still would possible, although unlikely, that someone could run for political office after their 15 year term.

I will agree that increasing the number of justices to 12 is a great idea, and allowing, in the case of a tie, the lower court's ruling to stand.

1/15/2009 9:28:30 AM

gotta love the gov....they say mistakes made due to their neglegence is fine...all while prosecuting to the fullest extent a citizen's

slipperly slope...even if the error was due to disregard for rights (such as intentionally altering a record to allow for unlawful arrest), it would be very hard for a citizen to prove that.

not to mention, this effectively removes incentive for departments to ensure accurate record keeping.

sigh

1/15/2009 10:03:28 AM

I agree with this ruling.

Assuming it was genuinely a mistake, and not something underhanded, then I don't see why the charges should be thrown out.

The cops were genuinely under the impression the guy had a warrant out, and they acted accordingly based on that information. If he didn't have drug paraphernalia on him he would have been let go, and he is clearly a repeat offender so I have little sympathy for him otherwise.

You can argue the cops would start exploiting this, but the way the ruling is worded, it seems any charges made by doing something underhanded (making it look like a mistake, for example) would get thrown out, and rightfully so.

1/15/2009 11:10:31 AM

Quote :

"You can argue the cops would start exploiting this, but the way the ruling is worded, it seems any charges made by doing something underhanded (making it look like a mistake, for example) would get thrown out, and rightfully so."

That puts the onus on a defendant to prove innocence due to violation of the 4th amendment...which is backwards from what it is supposed to be.

everyone else is held to responsibility for honest mistakes, I don't see how the law should be any different.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2009 11:27:18 AM

I don't think this could be abused any more than probable cause could. It still needs to e proved in court.

Quote :

"Hey we didn't know we couldn't stop everyone in the Metro and strip search them. So, sorry for being negligent. But, hey, we found a guy who used his phone to place a bet on the Knicks game so we're going to arrest him anyway."

This would never work. They'd need o give solid evidence of the mistake. Ignorance of the law on the part of the police officers isn't a "mistake."

Quote :

"That puts the onus on a defendant to prove innocence due to violation of the 4th amendment..."

No, the burden of proof would be on the police officers to establish why it was a legitimate error.

Quote :

"everyone else is held to responsibility for honest mistakes, I don't see how the law should be any different."

They're held responsible for mistakes that harm others. Finding illegal substances on people is hardly the same thing, though.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 12:13:53 PM

this is just amazing to me:

Quote :

"The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges."

they acknowledged his rights were violated, but provided no protection for the subsequent penalites afterward, which were a direct result of the rights violation.

Either his rights were not violated and the arrest stands, or they were and it doesn't. What good is having rights if they can be lawfully violated?

Quote :

"No, the burden of proof would be on the police officers to establish why it was a legitimate error."

that's a farce, all they have to do is have a record keeper testify that "it was an honest mistake", while to actually prove it wasn't would take significantly more effort on the part of a defendant...they're not going to actively present evidence that shows they broke the law

Quote :

"They're held responsible for mistakes that harm others. Finding illegal substances on people is hardly the same thing, though"

violation of one's constitutional rights is tho.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2009 12:21:44 PM

I don't understand why everyone's so particularly upset about this case and why it's received so much attention. These types of exceptions to the warrant requirement have been evolving for decades.

Take for example the Maryland v. Garrison case from 1987 in which police obtained a warrant to search a man's apartment who lived on the third floor of a building. They went into an entirely different person's apartment than the one listed on the warrant and foudn drugs and the conviction was upheld and the evidence not suppressed. At least here, while the warrant for Herring had expired, at least they had the right guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Garrison

I guess this is just another indication of how weak the general public's attention span is.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2009 1:10:17 PM

^imo that's wrong as well, but in that case they found his rights were not violated

Quote :

"The court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights. "

in this one they said rights were violated but it's in essence OK.

1/15/2009 1:31:45 PM

Quote :

"More so I don't get the "party line" argument considering how many of the so-called "liberal" justices have been Republican appointees (infamously, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others)."

Sandra isn't on the court anymore and Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton.

1/15/2009 2:58:53 PM

Quote :

"And regardless of who appointed the member, it's clear they are following some sort of line with pairs/groups of them so consistently and predictably vote the same as each other, based on the perceived political ideology in the case."

Well, that's one way to put it. Another way to put it might be that one group of members is interpreting the law *correctly* and the others are off in la-la land. Just as, for example, in a college class there is a "party line" of people who consistently make A's, and then everyone else.

I don't think it's doing them much justice (heh heh) to simplify their positions to a "political ideology." Is strict construction political just because its effects may be more beneficial to conservatives? I don't think so.

1/15/2009 3:33:55 PM

Lets go over some examples here, of stuff that has already happened, and in the last 4 months:

a 13 year old girl was waiting for the bus when 4 men jumped out of a van and tried to obduct her. The father witnessed the act in progress and ran out to help his daughter.
Turns out the police had the WRONG HOUSE and thought the daughter was a prostitute. The father was arrested for assulting a police officer, and they were both charged with resisting arrest. The officers were rewarded for their bravery.

a person was arrested on drug charges. They decided to rat out another person to get a reduced sentence. This person was supposedly a grower of marijuana.
The Police issued a no knock warrent. The accused man was awoken to someone kicking in his door, and he had been robbed two week earlier so he thought it was happening again. He grabbed his gun and shot the intruder. This happened to be a police officer and the suspect was charged with murder. When the house was searched, they found a misdemeanor amount of illegal drugs, and nothing for growing. Officers recieved medals for bravery.

Similar instance, police issues a no knock warrant. They entered the wrong house and 3 officers were shot. That person is charged with murder. Officers recieved comondations.

In any of these cases, if there hadn't been police screw ups then nothing BAD would have happened. If these had been criminals commiting these acts the now victims would have been called brave and possibly heros.

This ruling just gives more leniency to police officers to screw up and get rewarded.

1/15/2009 9:25:55 PM

^Getting shot by a homeowner isn't really being rewarded...

Be concerned about the violation of citizen's rights, and how the people in these cases shouldn't be charged (or at least shouldn't be convicted) of anything, not about the bravery-status of the officers.

1/15/2009 9:30:59 PM

^I thought that was self evident by posting in the thread itself. I'm just pointing out that the police who weren't killed are being rewarded for a srew up that ruined so many lives.

1/15/2009 10:31:39 PM

Quote :

"This ruling just gives more leniency to police officers to screw up and get rewarded. "

How do you figure?

Those screwups you mentioned are of a completely different nature than what the ruling was about. The ruling was fairly particular in to when it was applied.

1/15/2009 11:47:12 PM

Quote :

"violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges. "

Obviously the court's decision is pretty troubling.

Personally I think the charges they got the guy on were pretty bs anyways. (federal drug and gun laws)

1/16/2009 8:05:29 AM

Quote :

"The court wrote: "Common sense informs us that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen ... was excessively intrusive.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/index.html

maybe there is some hope yet....

Good going principal find those Drugs IBUProfin; our war on drugs has gone to far when schools are strip searching teens b.c they may have prescription aleve.
I can't beleive how so many people in position of power act as dumb robots for the law and rules of our country w/o at least putting in some kind of common sense and discretion.

1/16/2009 8:33:46 PM

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/supreme-court-sides-with-police-in-4th-a

Yet another nail in the coffin. As long as the police ignorance is "reasonable" they don't actually need a valid reason to stop you or to conduct a search.

12/15/2014 10:02:58 PM

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Unless you're charged with upholding that law, then feel free to be ignorant.

12/15/2014 11:51:03 PM

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's credibility watch +1?

12/15/2014 11:55:25 PM

Quote :

"Require more than a majority to make the decision. Require a 6-3 to make a decision."

apparently that's not enough, see ^^

12/16/2014 9:51:40 AM

fuck SCOTUS.

12/16/2014 1:12:49 PM

lol y'all bitching about a decision with a 200-year-old precedent

12/16/2014 8:17:30 PM

If you aren't doing anything wrong than you have nothing to worry about AM I RITE

12/19/2014 1:07:15 PM