In a Jan. 14 decision, the meaning of the exclusionary rule was revised again with the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to allow the use, in some cases, of evidence obtained during illegal police searches. The exclusionary rule prevents evidence from being used in court that was obtained in a manner that violates the Constitution.
The case: Herring v. United States
The change in the rule came from the court’s decision about Herring v. United States. On July 7, 2004, Alabama police officer Mark Anderson arrested Bennie Dean Herring because of a recording error in the police computer database, according to the Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection. The database Anderson used to verify Herring’s criminal position erroneously reported that a warrant was out for his arrest in a neighboring county.
The warrant, however, had been recalled months earlier, a fact that was not entered in the database. The mistake remained unknown until after Herring had been searched and drugs and a gun were discovered in his car.
When Herring was indicted on federal gun and drug possession charges, he moved to suppress the evidence by claiming it had been discovered during an initial arrest that, Herring claimed, was illegal. The Jan. 14 ruling upheld the charges against Herring.
What the Justices Said
Affirmed: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In the majority opinion, Roberts stated that the arrest of Herring violated the Fourth Amendment but that, in circumstances of isolated instances of negligence such as the computer error in Herring’s case, the jury should be allowed consideration of all evidence.
Dissented: Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Hackett Souter and John Paul Stevens.
In the court’s dissenting opinion, Ginsburg asserted that Anderson had previously interacted with Herring. Ginsburg cited an incident where Anderson had reported to the local district attorney that he was suspicious of Herring’s involvement in the death of a local teenager, according to the Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection. In dissenting opinion of the court, Ginsburg said “(it) underestimates the need for a forceful exclusionary rule, and the gravity of recordkeeping errors in law enforcement.” Breyer also joined Ginsburg in her dissent by authoring a separate opinion.
Why It Matters
The court decision alters the court view of the exclusionary rule as it now allows evidence that may have been obtained through actions that potentially violate a defendant’s civil rights. In effect, the decision gives more power to law enforcement and relaxes restrictions judges and prosecutors use in presenting evidence.
University assistant law professor Ofer Raban said he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision.
“First, now police don’t have an incentive to remedy negligent record-keeping,” Raban said. “In addition, this harms everybody. This rule is meant to protect the innocent much more than the criminal defender. Now there will be more false arrests in part because of negligent records.”
A Few Historic Cases Involving Exclusionary Rule
Boyd v. United States: The 1886 case involved the compulsory production of business papers. The court ruled that the evidence should not be used in court because the defendant had been forced to provide papers that could be used against him.
Rochin v. California: In 1949, three Los Angeles officers obtained evidence of narcotic possession by pumping the defendant’s stomach. The defendant, who had swallowed two pills before officers could restrain him, was taken to a hospital where the officers directed a doctor to pump the man’s stomach. The court deemed the evidence officers gathered from the stomach pumping as “too objectionable” to be lawfully used.
Mapp v. Ohio: On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers entered the home of Dollree Mapp. They presented a paper they claimed to be a search warrant. Later, it was discovered that no such warrant existed. While searching Mapp’s home, officers discovered what the court described as “lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs” that violated Ohio’s Revised Code. The court overturned the conviction of Mapp and extended the exclusionary rule to all levels of the justice system, including state court.
[email protected]