Interesting SCOTUS decision

[zerojunkie]

http://fe11.story.media.ac4.yahoo.co...cotus_evidence

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The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so.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.

The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.

Yes, from fark.

How is the court going to tell between an honest mistake and a not-so-honest one?

[PETA]

that's more of an affirmation

and honest mistake of fact will not necessarily invoke the exclusionary rule

there are other exceptions... none of which I can recall presently

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

that's more of an affirmation

and honest mistake of fact will not necessarily invoke the exclusionary rule

there are other exceptions... none of which I can recall presently

Well, a lot of good you are!

I'll send you a box of fingerbanged doughnuts if you can remember the exceptions.

[tricky]

other exceptions

Even when the exclusionary rule does apply, the rule excludes the illegally obtained evidence only on the issue of the defendant's guilt for the particular crime charged. The evidence can still be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant's trial testimony; however, this exception applies only if the defendant testifies, and the evidence is relevant to call into question the truthfulness of the defendant's testimony.
The inevitable discovery doctrine is a direct exception to the exclusionary rule, in that it allows the admission of evidence on the issue of the defendant's guilt where the evidence would otherwise have been excluded. This doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. This decision was upheld because given the fact that the exclusionary rule was created specifically to deter police and state misconduct, excluding evidence that would inevitably (hypothetically) have been discovered otherwise would not serve to deter police misconduct. In People v. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may not be used to admit primary evidence but only secondary evidence—i.e., evidence found as a result of the primary evidence.
The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. The evidence must result from the unlawful conduct. A three-pronged test was created in People v. Martinez to determine whether there was sufficient attenuation of this connection ( i.e. the lack of connection between the disputed evidence and the unlawful conduct): (1) the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely unrelated to the illegality at hand. This rule was formally accepted in People v. Arnau.
The good-faith exception may allow some evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution if the violation results in only a minor or technical error. If a magistrate is erroneous in granting a police officer a warrant, and the officer acts on the warrant in good faith, then the evidence resulting in the execution of the warrant is not suppressible. However, there are a number of situations in which the good faith exception will not apply:

1. No reasonable judicial officer would have relied on the affidavit underlying the warrant.
2. The warrant is defective on its face for failing to state the place to be searched or things to be seized.
3. The warrant was obtained based on an affidavit which, intentionally or recklessly, includes material falsehoods.
4. The magistrate has "wholly abandoned his judicial role."

[Adam D]

That basically legitimizes police negligence.

Way to go conservatives.

[name change request]

yeah, i dont like this decision at all

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

That basically legitimizes police negligence.

Way to go conservatives.

Adam.. inevitable discovery and the list of other exceptions this court recently affirmed has diddly to do with "conservatives." Its fairly old (Nix 1984) and uncontroversial law.

Anyway, this ruling is, as I said, in essence nothing more than an affirmation of a similar case (old enough that I read it in school) which also dealt with a warrant on file incorrectly. The negligent act of the administrative assistent is not really an abuse of state authority that the 4th seeks to prevent. The criminal got caught by sheer dumb luck of the police... not through abuse. The criminal could have reduced the odds of getting arrested by not have meth in his pocket.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Adam.. inevitable discovery and the list of other exceptions this court recently affirmed has diddly to do with "conservatives." Its fairly old (Nix 1984) and uncontroversial law.

Anyway, this ruling is, as I said, in essence nothing more than an affirmation of a similar case (old enough that I read it in school) which also dealt with a warrant on file incorrectly. The negligent act of the administrative assistent is not really an abuse of state authority that the 4th seeks to prevent. The criminal got caught by sheer dumb luck of the police... not through abuse. The criminal could have reduced the odds of getting arrested by not have meth in his pocket.

Ok, not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like inevitable discovery applies here. The defendant's warrant was erroneous. It wasn't found as part of an ongoing, legitimate, investigation.

[C-fer]

So basically it's in Law Enforcement's best interest to keep bad/outdated information on everyone, given that it is data that is harmful to them.
That way they can always say "well it was in the computer as a warrant" but hey we found something else to take you in for once we searched you, and oh yea it looks like you didn't have a warrant, but you're still screwed.

There should be punishments for them for having incorrect/conflicting data.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Ok, not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like inevitable discovery applies here. The defendant's warrant was erroneous. It wasn't found as part of an ongoing, legitimate, investigation.

I referred to inevitable discovery for the proposition that exceptions to the exclusionary rule exist.

The exceptions (and now you're getting recall not research) to the rule are based on the premise that the spirit of the exclusionary rule (prevent abuse) is not violated.

Here, the negligent act of an admin (failing to yank the warrant from the system) is not a form of abuse such that the honest act of the police in enforcing the law should require the state to disregard the evidence gathered during that act.

Originally Posted by DjKrispy

So basically it's in Law Enforcement's best interest to keep bad/outdated information on everyone, given that it is data that is harmful to them.
That way they can always say "well it was in the computer as a warrant" but hey we found something else to take you in for once we searched you, and oh yea it looks like you didn't have a warrant, but you're still screwed.

There should be punishments for them for having incorrect/conflicting data.

If agencies did what you suggest it would, imo and I'm guessing the court's as well, violate the spirit of the exclusionary rule and therefore require exclusion.

Punishment? For incorrect/conflicting data? Go on. What do you mean and what the punishment should be for clerical errors.

[name change request]

they should be tarred and feathered if they make a clerical mistake!

down with the secretaries!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joel

they should be tarred and feathered if they make a clerical mistake!

down with the secretaries!

I suppose that would be effective in encouraging them to do their job with great precision. Though I'm not sure who'd accept the job. Still, it'd probably be fun to watch.