Exclusionary rule gets narrowed considerably
posted at 9:25 am on January 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
A Supreme Court decision yesterday didn’t get much attention, but it may have an enormous impact on prosecutions in the future. On a 5-4 vote, with Anthony Kennedy providing the swing vote yet again, the court ruled that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to clerical or computer errors within state and local police departments. This eliminates a technicality for defendants for dismissal, and also provides another look at the impact of the presidency on a wide range of judicial issues, and not just abortion:
The Supreme Court limited the use of the so-called “exclusionary rule” today and said that evidence seized by the police need not be thrown out if officers later learn their search warrant was faulty because of a computer mistake.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the exclusionary rule was intended to deter the police from conducting illegal searches of homes and cars. It was not intended to give criminals a free pass if officers search the wrong house or car because of a computer error at police headquarters, he said.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the drug and gun charges against an Alabama man who was stopped on a highway by an officer who had been told there was an outstanding arrest warrant for his arrest. It turns out that was a mistake.
The officer, Mark Anderson, had called and been told by a clerk in a neighboring county that Bennie Dean Herring had failed to appear on a felony charge. But minutes after Officer Anderson stopped Herring and found methamphetamine and a pistol in his car, the clerk called back to say the arrest warrant had been withdrawn. This fact had not entered into the department’s computer.
At issue for the court was whether the exclusionary rule required the evidence to be thrown out.
The dissenters said that further weakening of the exclusionary rule would allow innocent people to get convicted, but that’s a stretch. This doesn’t allow false evidence to be admitted at trial, it keeps good evidence from being excluded as a result of benign error. The exclusionary rule dates back to 1914 and intended to keep the government from conducting illegal searches by essentially rendering anything gleaned in one inadmissible in court.
The rule exists for good reason. Without an exclusionary rule, the state or federal government would have little reason to obey the Fourth Amendment. Illegal searches would result in wristslaps while the evidence collected from the violation of the Constitution would still get used in court. The only counterbalance to the overwhelming advantage in force of the government over the individual citizen is the threat that evidence gained through illegal means cannot ever be used.
However, courts took the exclusionary rule too far, and in the last generation they have begun correcting from the extreme. If a police officer conducts a lawful search based on the information he has at hand, clearly any evidence gleaned from that search should be lawful. As Roberts wrote, the exclusionary rule intended to penalize the state for deliberate rights violations, not for clerical errors or data-entry delays. Too many criminals get freed over silly technicalities such as these, and that denies justice to the People, who have the same stake in complaints as the defendants.
The 5-4 vote on this shows the wisdom of the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Will we get similarly common-sense constructionists from Barack Obama when openings occur on the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court? Somehow, I doubt it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Putting the tinfoil on…
What’s to keep a good ol’ boy LEO from creating a “computer error” as cover to search whomever and wherever he wants?
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 9:31 AM
I…disagree here.
Yeah the guy had illegal stuff in his car, sure.
But here’s the real point. The search warrant was NON-EXISTENT, so they had no right to
a> pull him over
b> perform a *mandatory* search on his car.
But now this court ruling says, oh hey, that’s ok because the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to honest mistakes.
Really?
So now it’s “ok” for someone to accidentally search Rush Limbaugh’s car to fish for evidence and prosecute if they find something?
Skywise on January 15, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Excellent, good sense and pragmatic reasoning has attacked the judicial system. Decisions of this type are long overdue.
rplat on January 15, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I have to agree with you. There’s too much of a chance that someone will abuse this authority, and citizens will be powerless to stop it. Power (and thus rights) that are surrendered to the government are not easily regained.
This is the Kelo of the 4th Amendment.
Vic on January 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
It will be up to the Court to prevent such abuse.
Do you really think that a celebrity like Rush would be pulled over accidentally?
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Then again, Clinton’s IRS audited many more conservative groups than liberal.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM
‘Computer glitch’ as a mea culpa ‘OOPS’ justification for illegal searches doesn’t cut it with me. You trust any Government authority to not lie about a computer glitch or clerical error because? Bureaucracies live for computer glitches and clerical errors. That’s what bureaucracies do, that is their product created. The Government shold not get the benefit of the doubt, not with the overwhelming power they have to ruin someone’s life.
RickZ on January 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM
The problem with the “Exclusionary Rule” remains…..It does not protect the innocent, it protects the guilty. While this change addresses the use of technicalities by judges to throw out legitimate evidence, nothing punishes those officers who knowingly search or harass without a warrant.
Whatever you do with evidence, an illegal search should be grounds for sanction of the officer up to and including dismissal and even imprisonment.
Kasper Hauser on January 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Seems to me that makes sense–to a point. You want to discourage illegal searches. But imagine this. You are stopped accidently driving through a state and have an unloaded handgun under your seat. You are searched and it is found and it is illegal in that state (but legal in the state you were coming from and going to). Should the search stand? Should you get convicted? You have no criminal record.
Mr. Joe on January 15, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Seeing as how the exclusionary rule (especially as enforced against the states) was created by an act of judicial activism by the Warren court, I think it is a happy day that it is being scaled back. It is a simple fact: originalists do not see an exclusionary rule in the Constitution.
medguy on January 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Given this rewrite of the ER, I don’t know how the Court could prevent abuse. It’s basically saying an “error” is irrelevant when it comes to conducting a search.
For example, assume there’s no PC or AS to support searching the house of someone a LEO really wants to search, so a “computer error” “accidentally” puts that person’s address on another, valid warrant. How would the Court necessarily know if it was a benign error or something more sinister? The homeowner would have that burden, which is exactly wrong in my opinion.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Dont they have a right to pull him over if there is an arrest warrant?
Plus, if u are pulled over for a traffic violation or DUI and the cops find you acting suspicious, dont they have the right to search the car? There have been several stories reported in my area where they have caught drug dealers from pulling them over for traffic offenses and finding drugs. All were charged and have been sentenced to jail time.
becki51758 on January 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM
The number of clerical errors and computer errors just soared; there is no longer a reason for warrants to be accurate.
htom on January 15, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I’m not sure if you were being serious, but it does seem that this ruling opens the door for police to claim “computer error” at their discretion. Maybe the cops want to raid a house but they don’t have enough evidence for a warrant. They could just raid the house anyway and claim after the fact that it was the result of a clerical mistake.
When law enforcement officers make mistakes, the consequences can be severe, not just for them but for the general public. I’m not sure it’s a good thing that the SCOTUS has created a catch-all excuse for police to use when they want to avoid the consequences of their actions…
Enrique on January 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Don’t get too use to having intellegent rulings from the Supremes… Once The Messiah gets his dirty, crooked, Liberal hands on our judiciary it’s toast. Many of Bush’s decisions I strongly disagreed with, but his selections for Supreme Court were great for the Constitution and America. Once the far left get’s it’s grip on the courts America will cease to be free… The beginning of the end for any Conservative, Bill of Rights, Constitution inspired rulings is nigh…
Mark Garnett on January 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I am being (fairly) serious…I see the “computer error” defense suddenly becoming legion to cover up discretionary searches, especially in jurisdictions where law enforcement tends to play fast and loose.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I think reasonable exceptions to the exclusionary rules should be allowed, but those exceptions should never make an improper search, proper. I can’t see allowing a search that would not have been allowed had no error been made, which is exactly what happened in this case. Errors can easily be made intentionally, and it is very difficult to prove intent. How hard would it be for the police to find someone living on your street with an outstanding warrant, and then “accidently” get the house number wrong in order to search your house? That kind of abuse could become common under this ruling.
Immolate on January 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM
“…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy”.
–Chief Justice John Jay
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
–Thomas Jefferson
“It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
–John Adams
Fully Informed Jury Association
Rae on January 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I’ve learned a few things in this life:
1. Cops are not there to protect you; even the Supreme Court has said so. They are there to fill out reports after a crime and generate revenue for the city/state for which they work.
2. Courts are there to support the will of the government, not the will of the people.
3. If power can be abused, it will be abused.
4. Tainted evidence can now be allowed by a simple “oops, we made an error in the computer”.
Vic on January 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Failure to appear on a felony charge is no reason to pull him over? Doesn’t failure to appear make him a fugative? It’s not like this guy was innocent or anything, he was already a criminal.
loudmouth883 on January 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I agree with the Instapundit’s take on this
The Dean on January 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM
The “computer error” will be the equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”. If the LEO doesn’t have a warrant, then he doesn’t have a warrant, so he has no legal authority to perform the search that uncovers the evidence. Under the Poisoned Fruit theory, that means he can’t use the evidence he obtained illegally to prove that the suspect committed a crime.
We expect our law enforcement agencies to uphold the law, not break it.
The Monster on January 15, 2009 at 10:01 AM
We are the most protected populace in the world. Your view assumes that all of the tens of thousands of good cops out there are like the relatively few bad cops.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
If you are a victim this helps. If you are a criminal you should be worried.
thomasaur on January 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
As someone who is a programer and software developer himself? Its just way too easy to mod a system to put any type of error in you want.
And once you start dealing with low level code, its almost impossible to find any backdoors in the system…
Hmmm… and isn’t it intersting that in this case, the Supremes have said that what the Electronics say is what the Officer can legaly act upon… even if wrong… and yet we were talking about a Pardon case yesterday, where even though Bush had signed the Pardon, that because a LETTER had not been delivered, it was not valid?
Can’t quite wrap my head around how both vieopoints can be valid… except that its convenient how BOTH protect the State, over the Individual.
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Good thing we don’t see abuses, overreaching, corruption, and most of all – cover-ups when mistakes are made – in the courts, prosecutors office, and the police.
I’m not worried about Rush getting pulled over accidently in his Maybach.
This opens up yet more opportunities for police corruption. As long as they are on the up and up and don’t try and cover up their mistakes……. yeah, ok.
JeffinOrlando on January 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I think people are a little too skeptical of this ruling. It reads to me that there has to be a warrant in the first place for there to be an error on, and for there to have been a warrant, there needed to be some sort of evidence for it to be based on.
Having worked for a prosecutor’s office, I know how frustrating it is to have a case thrown out because of some silly technicality. Sometimes it’s as simple as a transposed address number invalidating a search.
Sir Corky on January 15, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Bennie Dean Herring is complaining about his fourth amendment rights only because he got caught.
Right decision. Those who disagree, be my guest. You can take comfort that if Obama gets his hands on any more than two appointments, you’ll likely get this decision overturned, and you’ll be able to stop stockpiling tinfoil.
Yes, 30% to 40% of the voters would have voted for Obama in all events. But to the pinheads in the middle who voted for Mr. Popularity, I do hope someone like Bennie Dean Herring shows up at their door waving a gun high on the drug du jour.
Supreme Court (and other federal judicial post) appointments matter. Supremely. And they should not be in the hands of Obama.
BuckeyeSam on January 15, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I’m with Ed. The Constitution never intended to require that the government operate free from errors, no matter how benign, when conducting criminal enforcement. (Come on, now, try to suggest otherwise without chuckling :)) The exclusionary rule was constructed to balance this fact against the real threat of abuse of power by cops and prosecutors. Even with this ruling there is still considerable latitude for judges to exclude evidence if there is a hint of intentional abuse of the rules.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Hey, I’m not exactly doing cartwheels over this decision. Look at my comment at 9:38.
jgapinoy on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I don’t think searching the wrong house is a silly technicality.
In the wake of reading Glenn Reynolds’ column on the subject, I can think of a number of firearms dealers who were prosecuted and tossed out of business for one simple transposition error….
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Punishing the police for an error made by someone else does not serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule.
This had been the law in most jurisdictions for many many years. So, stop acting like it is the end of the constitution.
Blake on January 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Agreed. Slippery slope here folks. The SC should have narrowed this decision with explicit instructions that would not allow for deception or malfeasance.
Ed’s right on with this point. I fear the Supremes have put the 4th Amendment in jeopardy. Recourse of any grievance, (justified or not) just got a lot tougher.
Rovin on January 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I’m no liberal but I would have sided with the liberals on this one. Its just too easy for the cops to fake “an honest mistake” and totally disregard the rights of citizens not to be subject to unwarranted searches.
From now on when the cops break down your door, ransack you home and shoot your dog without a warrant, that will all be OK as long as its an “honest mistake.” And afterwards if they find you did indeed have some unpaid parking tickets, then it was all good.
Maxx on January 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
No no, you misunderstood me. It’s the situation where the police search the intended house, meaning that they know where to go, but a clerical error on the warrant put the wrong address. The correct house was searched, but because the incorrect house was put on the warrant, the evidence can be thrown out.
The fact is that for a warrant to exist, some evidence also needed to exist in the first place. If there was no evidence for the warrant, then that case will be thrown out. Most prosecutors and clerks know this and probably won’t try to fabricate something on account of losing their jobs and being arrested themselves.
Are there unscrupulous people out there who will try to work this new angle? Absolutely, I’m sure of it. But I’m also sure that there are much fewer of those situations out there than there are of genuine mistakes where this rule will help.
Sir Corky on January 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
There’s a lot to be said for bright lines in the law.
Much as it may chafe to see a bad guy walk on a technicality, when you blur the bright line by saying that it was the good intent of the enforcers that matters, you have, one, attached an advantage to sloppy procedures while, two, at the same time making it nigh impossible for the defendant to prove collusion or operating from other bad motives should the constabulary be seeming to take advantage of that advantage. What was actually on someone’s mind when they arrested you is not a bright-line standard.
There’s also the ugly detail that the same sort of thinking does not work to the benefit of us mere citizens. “I did not know” doesn’t get us off the hook.
Chaz on January 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
How do you know this? That is, how do you know it will be “easy” to fake a honest mistake? How do you know that judges aren’t going to see through those kinds of schemes?
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
This is utter nonsense, and not suggested by the ruling in the least.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
I’m with you…apologies for the misunderstanding.
Assume that the police wanted to search 1012 Main Street but the warrant said 1021 Main Street. The police now have a warrant to go to 1021 Main Street and toss the place, plus can turn that person’s life upside down, and basically just say “sorry, computer error.” Compounding that is if the police find anything (and I do believe that police can find evidence of *some* wrongdoing in most any house they enter, if they look hard enough) the evidence can now be used in Court. Plus they can reuse the warrant to go back and search 1012 Main Street.
There’s the dumb cliche about 10 guilty men going free. I hate to see things go down on dumb technicalities too, but to me the solution isn’t to dumb down the system to make dumb errors acceptably, but instead improve the system so dumb errors don’t happen in the first place.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with this. “Acting suspicious” can be anything the cop writes it up to be. I’ve always wondered if creative writing classes are included in LE training.
a capella on January 15, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Describe what such a warrant would look like in the computer.
In this case, there was indeed a warrant issued by a court, but it had been withdrawn. It’s unclear from the description in the story who should have taken the warrant out of the system, but if that “who” is the police department, the system has a rather bad bug. The USER of the data should not have to fix things the PROVIDER of the data should fix. In other words, if the warrant was withdrawn, the courts should have done the work to withdraw it from whatever database the police depend upon to do their work.
Of course, systems which involve both humans and computers often have timing defects related to that interaction. If you can print out something, and someone can change in the system what you’ve printed out a millisecond after you’ve printed it (but before you’ve acted on the data you’ve printed), there’s already a data defect issue.
These things will happen; that said, the guy named in the withdrawn warrant was indeed bad news.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Yeah, I can aggree with you on this… if it was a valid search warrant EXCEPT for a clerical error? And the proper place was searched? No problem…
But this is going the other direction, where they are able to search a place without probable cause, or a warrant, and then say OOPsie afterwards… and still use the evidence.
With No Knock Warrants… this really becomes a problem…
Also, one of the checks on the system, to make SURE it was accurate, was that Cops KNEW their evidence would be thrown out if there was any mistake… now? knowing that it may or may not be thrown out, its Human Nature that they won’t be as carefull.
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Great. We continue whipping the dead horse that is the Fourth Amendment.
Lots more “computer errors” in the future. “But judge, the computer ,like, totally said there was a search warrant for his house…”
But my main point it this: If the state is going to go smashing down the doors of citizens’ homes and rifling through their possessions and records, is it really so much to ask that they have all i’s dotted and t’s crossed? Is that just too much to expect?
CTD on January 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
JohnTant: I agree that your scenario is abusive but I don’t think it is clear that it is covered by this ruling. In this case, Bennie Dean Herring had already been stopped for a legitimate reason, he had a warrant issued for him, even though it was withdrawn. That’s a higher level of probable cause than searching the entirely wrong house.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Some silly technicality. Why should the general public trust that someone who can’t transpose a 3 or 4 digit number from a screen or a piece of paper to another piece of paper should be trusted to perform honest to goodness technically difficult evidence collection, investigating and prosecuting properly. It’s not about getting over on technicalities. It’s about competence and accountability from those in government.
How frustrating was it for you to have to kick something because the police involved did something stupid. They actually had a good case, but they did something dumb?
JeffinOrlando on January 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM
I also believe the average citizen is not allowed to employ deception during questioning, while the questioners may do so.
a capella on January 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Do you even realize how stupid that sounds? Have you ever mistyped a word? Obviously you have. Then how can we trust you to drive a car? I think we should revoke your license right now. Lives are at stake.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM
In the larger view though, Herring didn’t have a warrant on him…it was withdrawn. It’s the Government’s burden to maintain the support on such things, not Herring’s. His Stop wasn’t legitimate, even though the officer didn’t know it at the time.
Granted, I’d prefer a better poster boy than some meth-addled felon but sometimes you’re stuck with the cards you have. Mainly I just hate hearing an ends-justifying-the-means rationale to justify making a faulty search legitimate.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:42 AM
JohnTant: my understanding was that the stop itself was legitimate; it was the subsequent search that was in question.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
THIS.
Are we really at a point where we cannot expect the government to do something as simple as getting a address correct, or knowing if there is a valid warrant out for someone?
What incentive do they have to keep up any level of diligence if they can just prosecute someone anyway, regardless of how sloppy and incompetent they are?
CTD on January 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
If you are a federally-licensed firearms dealer and mistakenly transpose two digits on the serial number of a firearm in Section D of form 4473 you will certainly be in danger of losing your license.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand the same level of precision from the Government that it demands of us.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Interestingly, many of the scenarios people are describing were already acceptable before this ruling. From the headline:
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM
That’s an terribly charitable characterization. I’d put the chances of Obama nominating such a jurist as less than slim & possibly less than none.
LFRGary on January 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM
John, don’t visit wrongs with wrongs. If what you are saying is true, then the problem is that the Section 4473 rules are too harsh and need to be relaxed. I have a feeling that were it not for this ruling, that is exactly what you would be arguing.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Mcg, from the story:
The reason for the stop was the withdrawn fail-to-appear warrant. Apparently he wasn’t already stopped.
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM
I agree, the cops could have got meth-boy later, they had his number. But now this hard case has damaged the laws that protect the rest of us. I’m disappointed by the courts decision.
Maxx on January 15, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I’m not arguing in favor of universal draconian adherence, but on the other hand we now have a situation where a lowly citizen commits a felony for a transposition while the police suffer no ill consequences for the same…
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:51 AM
From the decision:
Yes I was wrong, he wasn’t pulled over for other reasons.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I remember a case a few years ago where the evidence was thrown out because the judge used the wrong form when issuing a warrant.
If I remember right, there were two forms for two different types of warrants. The difference between the two forms was a single box.
They were out of the form the judge wanted, so he took the other form. Crossed out the title in the differing box, wrote in the title for the type of warrant he wanted to issue, then entered the correct data into the box.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Only if they can prove to the judge that it was an actual mistake, beyond their ability to detect.
MarkTheGreat on January 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM
No need to apologize, that’s why I explained my point, I realized it could be misunderstood.
I’m reluctantly agreeing with the ruling on this case nonetheless. There was still a valid warrant that existed at some point. Meaning that there was a valid purpose to arrest this man. Although that purpose apparently expired, it still existed at some point.
There are too many people that have to work in concert for a conspiracy. The clerk and the cops have to work together to fabricate a reason to create a warrant. A prosecutor has to carry through on that faulty purpose (which if he is clean, he’ll probably want some initial evidence to support the creation of the warrant). And a judge has discretion to throw the case out on motion from the defense attorney if there was no evidence to begin with. There are still a lot of checks in place to ensure that a person’s rights don’t get violated.
I’m still going to have faith in the system for the time being. There are too many people who have jobs and livelihoods at stake if they tried to do something nefarious. I guess it’s a wait and see scenario for now.
Sir Corky on January 15, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Yes. But you’re still making a misery-loves-company argument. If the problem is draconian enforcement, fix that. That’s what has happened here. Besides, we know the problem is with people who don’t believe in the validity of the Second Amendment. That’s a fight we’re going to have for a long time, and it doesn’t solve anything to gum up the rest of our legal system to prove a point.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:56 AM
See, to me that’s a dumb technicality. :)
Hey, Tant *can* be reasonable!!!
JohnTant on January 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
To everyone claiming that this is going to open the door to all sorts of inappropriate searches, make sure to read my 10:46am comment and make sure your scenarios weren’t already acceptable under current practice. You may find that this ruling doesn’t change a thing.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I inferred this earlier, but it bears repeating: This ruling doesn’t change a thing. A case has finally made it’s way up to the USSC, but this has been the law for almost 20 years.
Blake on January 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Your answer is in the paragraph immediately following your quote-
Previously if the justice department had sworn out a warrant erroneously then the evidence could be allowed. (One government entity misinforming another, so corruption requires a bit of collusion)
Now it’s okay if the police department mistakenly says you have a warrant and collects evidence on you. (Power to corrupt is all in one department). Subtle, but very important difference.
Skywise on January 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Sorry, but your premise is incorrect.
Give me access to the computer system, and short of someone as skilled as I to catch me, I can modify any data in that system.
It would be VERY easy to go in and change addresses, or names, on the electronic data for the warrants.
And as warrants are a County by Country type of thing, I could go into a NEIGHBORING Countys computers, and just as this case showed, get another county to arrest that guy… Then…. ooopsie… sorry… data was wrong… but with this ruling anything found in that illegal search would now be admissable…
This dilutes one major check on Police Power to search…
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I’m not saying that this ruling didn’t change anything. What I’m saying is that people on this thread have been trotting out all sorts of doomsday scenarios about what this ruling means, and I’m arguing that many of those scenarios could play out even without this ruling.
Look at “good faith exception”, for instance. I mean, my goodness, that’s an exception big enough to drive a truck through—if you are the kind of person, as many apparently are here, to do the driving. But in fact, the judicial oversight applied to determine when these errors are benign does a decent job of weeding things out.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Holy crap some of you people need to get a life here. When is the last time any of YOU were falsely accused by police of a crime? That’s right, none of you.
The change is to prevent criminals from getting away with crime because the police department forgot to put their address on the return envelope on the subpoena. And that’s ok with me.
tx2654 on January 15, 2009 at 11:24 AM
You are totally talking out of your ass here. You have no idea how those systems even works, do you? You have no idea what kind of security and/or logging measures are put in place.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Computer errors (and cover-ups) can be checked …. digital forensics people.
I’m more concerned about American mosques sending “religious” agents into prisons for conversion purposes.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on January 15, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Right you are. You are not allowed to lie to the “authorities”, that is itself a crime. The “authorities” are however allowed, nay encouraged, to lie to you.
Ayn Rand was right.
johnsteele on January 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Hmmm…. actualy… twice…
Once in Family Court… by an X… and Family Protective Services….
And once I was arrested for there being drugs found in my apartment… when I was deployed at the time (roomate had a party while I was gone, someone else ditched the drugs when the cops showed up on a “noise complaint” and smelled Pot, but interestingly enough ALL of our neighbors were at the party).
So… yes… people do get caught up in the system.
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM
LOL!!!!
MCSE, Unix guy from way back, Navy Retired Eletronics Tech (was lead Tech for ComSubPac for 4 years, worked on his failsafe stuff), and I currently own and run my own Software development company… I used to program in Ring 0 if you have any idea what that means. Been working on Computers for just at 30 years…
I have DONE data forensics work for the Denver Cops. I have worked contracts of DHS.
But no, I don’t know what I’m talking about…. ROFL…
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I’m not a fan of the exclusionary rule. The solution should be to punish the offenders, with the possibility of making the evidence questionable, not to throw out the evidence entirely.
Count to 10 on January 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Mea culpa, Romeo, but thanks for proving my point in another way. Even if I grant that you are capable of the kind of abuse you describe, you are but one very unique person. Someone tap me on the shoulder when police departments across the country are full of people like you.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
This creates a perverse incentive for the police and the courts.
Now, it is in their interest for the computer system to have out of date information, because an out of date warrant can still serve as cause to collect evidence. There is now no incentive to have true and correct information in the system.
phelps on January 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
One of the things I find scary is the recent propensity of law enforcement to confiscate your weapons if you are even a suspect in certain types of crimes. I have read quite a few stories of this happening and worry that a clerical error could have the local police rifling through your gun cabinet with the possibility of return of the confiscated items uncertain.
brtex on January 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Hey Counselor, I will go with you on this one. Typing doesn’t really have anything to do with driving a car, except when taking a drivers test. And if I type something wrong or don’t pay attention, I may not get my license. Or maybe I should argue that my mistake was just a technicality and I should get my license anyway.
I have a feeling that you are a much bigger danger to the general public as an attorney or whatever it is you do in the prosecutors office, than I am in my car.
JeffinOrlando on January 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM
But you see, thats where you are also wrong. It does not take someone like me to change that data.
Each COUNTY has its own IT people, and its own systems. The data net is not tied together, even though DHS has been trying to do so for quite some time.
In fact, the Court data systems are often not even tied into the Police systems, as they apparently were not in this case… and each data net would then be running its own security policies. Add in CITY data systems… and you have so many entry points from which a hacker can attack the system… that it would be impossible to secure them all.
All it would really take was a semi knowlegable Script Kiddy with tools from the Net, and an Axe to Grind….
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The “Whacko’s” are trying to destroy us with our own rules of government.
DL13 on January 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM
If Bennie Dean Herring was caught red-handed, does that make him a red Herring?
Steve Z on January 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM
This holding states does not state that the burden to issue a warrant is lowered, therefore you can’t just fabricate a reason for a warrant to exist. What it does is allow a validly created warrant a little leeway in case of a clerical or computing error.
You still need evidence to create a warrant, and if you don’t have that, a person who is arrested and in possession of other potentially incriminating evidence will have their case thrown out due to the warrant having no basis. Yes, it might be an inconvenience to the person who is illegally searched, but most prosecutors and cops will realize that their arrest won’t stick, and the case will be thrown out, ultimately proving a fabricated warrant useless.
Sir Corky on January 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I think that a number of you who have commented about the “warrant” missed one important factor. The warrant had been rescinded, which means there was no warrant when the officer searched this car. The error was made (OOPS!) in that the officer’s computer was not updated. Should this have tainted the evidence? Yes. To do otherwise would open pandora’s box of convenient errors. Oh, and by the way, if the police stop you for speeding, they cannot search your car without your permission. It always surprises me that when people have something to hide say, “Oh, sure.”
TimothyJ on January 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Ha! I’ve no idea how you got the idea I was a prosecutor or even a lawyer :) My expertise is mathematics, actually.
Fine. But I’m counting on you to surrender your license if you’ve ever made even the most trivial mistake on the road. I mean, if you can’t be trusted to be error-free, get off the road, please!
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM
There is a lot of “this will open a lot of doors for officers to abuse this,” commenting on this. The fact is, ever since the ER has been in effect, there have been honest mistake exceptions. If a valid warrant states apartment 3, but officers find apartments 3a and 3b, evidence found in the wrong apartment not related to the warrant is not excluded. This has been the rule forever. This is not opening any more doors for bad officers, and the burden will still be on the prosecution to prove “honest mistake.”
In other words, less valid cases will be thrown out, not more bad cases included.
ConservativeLawStudent on January 15, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Hey, can we combine this with the no-knock home invasion style raids?
I mean, it was just a clerical error; and having a typo like that on a warrant isn’t grounds for any repercussions anymore, right?
And if they do break into the wrong house; they’re now very vested in finding something, anything to justify their presence aren’t they?
With this ruling, if they find something, then they’re home free; typo on the warrant + crime = good outcome.
If they don’t find anything, then they’ll likely have issues resulting from breaking into the wrong house and tearing up your place with no real justification.
So now they REALLY need to find something… well that can’t turn out badly I’m sure. I bet this will work out fine for everyone… what do you mean you found heroin\meth\crack in my house?
gekkobear on January 15, 2009 at 1:19 PM
No. He wants judges who will decide based on their conscience, not the law, remember?
madmonkphotog on January 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Actualy I read the results of this ruling a bit differently, which is why I’m worried.
The guy had no active warrant out. It apparently was not only not served prior, but was rescinded. The Cop went out and actively called another county, LOOKING for a warrant on this guy. Then, with no warrant in hand, stopped him, and searched him, after being “told” there was a warrant. This was not a standard traffic stop, this was an active search for dirt on this guy, and then the “mistake” gave the cop legal pretext to stop and search… and the Supremes have now validated that even though the guy should never have been stopped at all, evidence found is valid.
Not sure how the Supremes can say this guy got due process, or was secure in his person, and effects… as there was no warrant, and at the time of the stop, apparently no probable cause.
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM
This seems like common sense, which is why the 4 lefturd judges didn’t like it.
kirkill on January 15, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I beg to differ. Prosecutors could compartmentalize decisions on a need to know basis. “Mistakes” could be made be made in the issuance of a warrant that were intended to be made by others in the department. The opportunity for abuses abound.
Innocents will not be convicted, but the guilty will be convicted by illegal searches — and whether you like it or not, that is NOT the American way.
tommylotto on January 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Then why not have a police state? Since if you’re not guilty, you have nothing to fear!
Xolom on January 15, 2009 at 1:36 PM
This is a valid point. But again, this opportunity for abuse has been around since the dawn of the rule. All this ruling does is update the exception to modern technology. If a prosecutor in 1999 found out that a warrant was revoked, she could have made the decision not to contact the officers on their way to apprehend the suspect based on that warrant then as well. The defense would move to exclude the evidence based on the revocation, and the burden would again be on the prosecution to prove honest mistake.
ConservativeLawStudent on January 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I think one problem will be in how the courts interpret this…
As in your example, will the burden still be on the Prosecution to proove it was a reasonable mistake? Or will this shift the burden to the defense to have to proove it was a conspiricy.
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM
On the prosecution. Once the defense moves to exclude based on a bad warrant, the presumption is that the evidence was not the product of a valid warrant. So the burden is on the prosecution to prove to the judge that it was an honest mistake.
ConservativeLawStudent on January 15, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Apparently, the Supremes didn’t interpret the law the way you’ve just described. If they had, Bennie would have walked — sans the meth and gun, of course.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 2:59 PM
What are you talking about? Clearly the Supremes decided it was an honest mistake, so they upheld the prosecution. Aligns perfectly with what CLS is saying.
mcg on January 15, 2009 at 3:17 PM
In considering this case, remember that there was a valid warrant AT ONE TIME. Had this stop been made before it was withdrawn, this argument would not exist.
The internal audit trail of the computer records system should show that the withdrawl was never entered; that’s different from someone going in and destroying a withdrawl record. So there is at least a reasonable check against someone gaming this side of the system.
There is a certain caveat emptor quality here: after the warrant was said to be withdrawn, the fellow’s lawyer should have taken steps to be sure it really was out of the system.
njcommuter on January 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Huh? its now a Lawyers job to make sure that databases are updated correctly?
Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »