Herring v. United States

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Herring v. United States
ArgueDate=October 7
ArgueYear=2008
DecideDate=
DecideYear=
FullName=Bennie Dean Herring, Plaintiff, v. United States of America
Docket=07-513
Prior=Defendant convicted, United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama
Subsequent=Appeal denied, July 17, 2007 (Case #06-10795).
Certiorari granted, February 20, 2008
QuestionsPresented=The question of whether evidence gathered by a law enforcement officer in a good-faith search based on erroneous information provided by a law enforcement agency other than the one employing said officer should be subject to exclusion
SCOTUS=2008
Majority=
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
Concurrence=
Concurrence=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
LawsApplied=

"Herring v. United States", No. 07-513 (2008), is a case scheduled to be decided in the Fall 2008 term by the United States Supreme Court. It was granted certiorari on February 202008. The issue to be decided is whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest after receiving information from a different law enforcement agency about an outstanding warrant, and the information was later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency, and the incorrect information was the sole reason for the arrest, despite what may have been found afterwards.cite news|publisher=JURIST, University of Pittsburgh|author=Leslie Schulman|title=US Supreme Court to hear evidence suppression, state water rights cases|url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/us-supreme-court-to-hear-evidence.php|date=2008-02-19|accessdate=2008-02-29]

Background

In 2004, Bennie D. Herring drove to the Coffee County, Alabama, sheriff's office to check on a pickup truck that had been impounded. Upon his arrival, Investigator Mark Anderson of the Coffee County Sheriff's Department then asked the warrant clerk for that department to check for any outstanding warrants with the Dale County Sheriff's Department. Upon learning of and receiving a felony warrant for Herring's arrest, Anderson and another officer arrested Herring a short distance outside of the sheriff's department.cite web|title=No. 07-503, Herring v. United States; United States Department of Justice|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/0responses/2007-0513.resp.html|accessdate=2008-02-29] When arrested, firearms and methamphetamines were found on Herring's person. Only a few minutes later, the Dale County clerk informed the Coffee County sheriff's department that the warrant had been recalled prior, but that the Dale County Sheriff's Department had not updated its data to reflect this fact.cite news|publisher=Los Angeles Times|author=David G. Savage|date=2008-08-20|accessdate=2008-02-29|title=Supreme Court to review 'exclusionary rule' on evidence|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evidence20feb20,1,494682.story]

Trial

Pre-trial, Herring attempted to invoke the exclusionary rule to have the drug evidence suppressed, claiming that the arrest was unlawful, a move that was denied by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Following a conviction on one felony count of drug possession, Herring was then indicted, tried and convicted of weapons possession while in possession of illegal drugs. The resulting sentence was 27 months in federal prison.

Appeals

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford law professor,cite web|accessdate=2008-02-29|title=Docket for 07-513|url=http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-513.htm|author=United States Supreme Court] appealed the case on Herring's behalf to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply because of errors leading to an arrest that should not have happened. The Circuit Court denied the appeal, ruling that the evidence was admissible because the officer and his department was not the cause of the error. In its decision, the 11th Circuit cited "United States v. Leon", which created the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, "Arizona v. Evans", finding that because the error was corrected in a very short time, there was no evidence that the Dale County Sheriff's Department had problems disposing of recalled warrants, and thus no negligence involved.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on February 20, 2008. The case was argued before the Court on October 7, 2008.

References

External link

* [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-513.pdf Transcript of oral argument before the Supreme Court (PDF)]