The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that evidence obtained by police in some illegal searches and arrests may still be used by prosecutors against defendants during trial.
The case Herring v. United States involved Bennie Herring, who was arrested in Coffee County, Alabama, after police there were told by law enforcement personnel from neighboring Dale County that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. During the subsequent arrest, police found a weapon and drugs. Charges were brought against Herring for both of these violations. It turns out, however, that the Dale County personnel had made a mistake: there was not actually a warrant outstanding for Herring's arrest
Herring's attorneys filed a motion to suppress, or exclude, the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained illegally. In other words, they argued that if the Dale County personnel had not made a mistake, Herring would never have been arrested and not be facing a prison sentence. Previous Supreme Court rulings, including Mapp v. Ohio, have articulated and upheld this "exclusionary rule" barring improperly obtained evidence.
The Supreme Court ruled, however, that even though there was not a warrant and Herring should not have been arrested, charges could still be brought against him for possessing the weapon and drugs because the police in Coffee County had acted in good faith. That is, they did not intentionally conduct an illegal search. They believed that they were acting on correct information.
The importance of this ruling is that as long courts, both federal and state, believe that police are acting in good faith, then evidence obtained illegally may still be used to bring charges against defendants. The Supreme Court saw only a limited number of instances that would bar evidence obtained in an "unreasonable" search: those requiring a significant deterrent against police misconduct; those in which there was an intentional and reckless violation of the Constitution's protection against search and seizure; and those involving systematic violations by police of search and seizure protections. This is yet another decision by the Supreme Court that removes restrictions on the police at the expense of citizens' Constitutional protections against abuse of governmental power.
"The Supreme Court moves to the right, perhaps sharply to the right," California Bar Journal, August 2009
Herring v. United States
