Justices Says Evidence Valid Despite Police Error (5-4 again)

[lurky]

Source: NY Times / AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says evidence found after an arrest based on incorrect information from police files may be used against a criminal suspect.

In a 5-4 ruling Wednesday, the court is upholding the conviction of an Alabama man on federal drug and gun charges.

Bennie Dean Herring was arrested on what the Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's department thought was a valid warrant from a neighboring county. It turned out that the warrant for Herring's arrest had been recalled five months earlier.

...

But 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.''

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/14/washington/AP-Scotus-Evidence.html?_r=1&hp

---

Argggh! Now the police will find a way to be "negligent" every time they want to conduct and illegal search. I think Roberts & Co just created a huge end-run around the 4th Amendment.

[nebenaube]

1. Activist Judge! n/t

[lurky]

3. Yup. Thank god we have a Dem Prez to make SC appointments.

Too bad we didn't 8 years ago. These guys are on a mission to dismantle modern America.

[Winterblues]

9. What Conservative Justices do you predict Obama will replace?

I think pretty much all the Conservatives on the bench are quite young and will be there long after your grandchildren become adults.

[lurky]

11. If McCain had been elected, we'd be looking at 7-2 rulings for the

next 30 years. My point was prevention of further erosion.

However, Scalia and Kennedy are both 72 years old, and it may be in poor taste to mention it, but Scalia is a borderline-obese tobacco smoker. So I think the possibility of one of them bowing out in the next 4 years is plausible.

[Winterblues]

16. I hope you are right, there is no one I would rather see be gone than Scalia.

For any reason at all would be fine with me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. He'll be gone within 25 years.

[Orrex]

2. By that logic

Crimes committed through negligence rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of the law should likewise be excused.

[lurky]

4. Oooh! Nice!

I think it's even worse than that, though.

Here's an analogy:

Say a bank employee "accidentally" walks away from work with a giant bag of money. Using Robert's "reasoning", that person not only can not be prosecuted for theft, but should be allowed to keep the money.

:wtf:

[T Wolf]

5. Only if the bank employee is the bank PRESIDENT. Tellers will still be prosecutable.

[lurky]

6. Haha. n/t

[elleng]

21. Not analogous.

For one reason, such acts as you describe are probably NOT crimes, as it sounds like the perps would not have the requisite intent.

The 'exclusionary rule' was devised to discourage police from taking advantage of their misconduct.

“To trigger the exclusionary rule,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.”

[CTLawGuy]

26. correct

This case is not new ground, it is just the extension of an old rule, the "good faith exception."

[sasquatch]

7. I think it's time we start impeaching these douchebags

[benld74]

8. I call BULLSHIT

[AlexDeLarge]

10. Uh, Judge Roberts.

Be careful what you ask for, or opine about.

[jayfish]

12. What A Bullshit Decision!

How is one to determine whether or not an error is a "systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements" or just plain old "isolated negligence"? A hearing on top of a hearing on top of a trial? And another thing; why the fuck is it OK for the police to be negligent in isolated circumstances? I'm sure there are throngs of people in prison due to "isolated negligence".

Bullshit :mad: :mad: :mad:

Jay

[PM Martin]

13. Fortunately you have a Democratic President

who will make appointments to the court.

[iandhr]

14. I studied this case in my con law class

The issue was that a warrant clerk in Dale county told Coffee County that there was a outstanding warrant and police in Coffee County arrested Herring, Then 15 minutes later Dale county called Coffee County back to say the warrant was withdrawn. The argument I guess is that you can not hold Coffee County responsible for a mistake made by Dale County. In my study of this case Coffee County did everything by the book but Herrings rights were still violated the legal issues involved are more complex then you all are saying

[jayfish]

17. It Really Isn't...

any more complex. No warrant, no arrest. No arrest, no search. The results of the search are fruit from a poisonous tree. Regardless of where the poison originated. How long before departments begin to use this excuse when 3rd party crime labs frak up. Hey it wasn't our fault that a faulty DNA identification led to John's arrest. We still get to prosecute him for the ounce of pot, he was intending to distribute, found in his house.

Jay

[elleng]

22. As usual, the legal issues are often more complex!

'The case began when methamphetamines and a gun were found after Bennie D. Herring, an Alabama man, was arrested based on police officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.

That belief was based on incorrect information in the computer files of a neighboring county’s police department. The warrant had been withdrawn, but the database had not been updated.

Calling the error “isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest,” Chief Justice Roberts said the lower courts had been correct in allowing the jury in Mr. Herring’s case to consider the evidence. He was convicted and sentenced to 27 months in prison.

The ruling itself is relatively narrow and is arguably merely a logical extension of a 1995 decision, Arizona v. Evans, which recognized an exception to the exclusionary rule for arrests resulting from erroneous computer records kept by court employees (as opposed to the police.). . .

Roberts said the exclusionary rule was unlikely to deter isolated careless record keeping and should be reserved for “deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring systemic negligence.”

“The deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system,” the chief justice wrote. “Marginal deterrence does not ‘pay its way.’ ”'


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?hp

[leftynyc]

15. Might as well shit on the 4th amendment

Although the Patriot Act did that already.

[merh]

18. oh come on be nice they are overworked

and not paid enough :sarcasm:


:argh:


Tell me which amendment is it that they have not shit on? :grr:

[muntrv]

19. The 2nd Amendment.

[merh]

20. you are right

and that is the only the right thinks is in danger

[SoCalDem]

23. Scalia said it best..

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993.

He does not let "facts & stuff" get in the way of his decision-making..:puke:

[Divine Discontent]

25. Kick & 5th rec finally!!!!!!!!!

This is ridiculous - and if you cannot be protected, then they have absolute power in busting into anyone's home at anytime (& if they're crooked, planting whatever type of evidence in your place) and charging you with whatever they may find - but the fact is - you should have privacy that is protected by the Constitution.... WOW... this is so effed up.

How can this be changed? Is it a Supreme Court issue still, or does it now take an act of Congress? I'm ignorant on this legal question.

[Javaman]

27. so this is not a police state, why? nt

[zonmoy]

28. Rest in peace

to the fourth amendment.